Spokane Regional Bike Plan - Spokane Regional Transportation

Transcription

2008
SPOKANE REGIONAL BIKE PLAN
Adopted May 8, 2008
Prepared by:
221 West First Avenue, Suite 310
Spokane, WA 99201
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Executive Summary
Executive Summary ..........................................................................i
Section 1 - Purpose and Objectives
Purpose .......................................................................................... 1-1
Background..................................................................................... 1-2
Visions, Goals, and Objectives ....................................................... 1-2
Section 2 - Current Network Inventory and Usage
Existing Network Inventory ............................................................. 2-1
Existing Bicycle Usage, Survey Results.......................................... 2-1
Section 3 - Key Regional Issues
High Priority Projects Identified During Public Involvement ............ 3-1
Airway Heights Projects .................................................................. 3-2
Centennial Trail Projects................................................................. 3-4
Cheney Projects.............................................................................. 3-5
City of Spokane Projects................................................................. 3-6
City of Spokane Valley Projects ...................................................... 3-8
Liberty Lake Projects ...................................................................... 3-12
Spokane County Projects ............................................................... 3-13
Spokane Transit Authority Projects................................................. 3-18
Washington State Department of Transportation Projects .............. 3-19
Section 4 - Plans and Policies
Metropolitan Planning Organization ................................................ 4-1
Transit............................................................................................. 4-2
Trip Reduction................................................................................. 4-3
Land Use ........................................................................................ 4-4
Potential Bicycle Policy Language for
Local Comprehensive Plans ............................................. 4-5
Section 5 - Design and Engineering
Basic Principals of a Bicycle Network ............................................. 5-1
Regional Bicycle Classification System .......................................... 5-2
On-Street Facilities ......................................................................... 5-3
Off-Street Facilities ......................................................................... 5-8
Intersections ................................................................................... 5-8
Barriers ........................................................................................... 5-10
Signage and Pavement Markings ................................................... 5-11
Traffic Calming................................................................................ 5-12
Associated Needs for Bicycles........................................................ 5-13
Section 6 – Maintenance
Inspection ....................................................................................... 6-1
Sweeping ........................................................................................ 6-1
Pave Gravel Driveways................................................................... 6-2
Publicize A Hotline Number for Hazards......................................... 6-2
Minor Repairs ................................................................................. 6-2
Section 7 - Education, Encouragement and Enforcement
Education and Encouragement....................................................... 7-1
Enforcement ................................................................................... 7-6
Section 8 - Potential Funding Sources
Local Funding ................................................................................. 8-1
State Funding ................................................................................. 8-2
Federal Funding.............................................................................. 8-2
Other Funding ................................................................................. 8-4
Section 9 - Public and Agency Involvement
Public and Agency Involvement ...................................................... 9-1
List of Tables
Section 2
Table 1 Share of Total Person Trips by Mode ................................ 2-1
Table 2 Transportation Usage Statistics ......................................... 2-2
Section 3
Table 3 High Priority Bicycle Projects ............................................. 3-1
Table 4 Bike Projects Considered by City of Airway Heights .......... 3-2
Table 5 Bike Projects Considered by Centennial Trail .................... 3-4
Table 6 Bike Projects Considered by City of Cheney...................... 3-5
Table 7 Bike Projects Considered by City of Spokane.................... 3-6
Table 8 Bike Projects Considered by City of Spokane Valley ......... 3-8
Table 9 Bike Projects Considered by Liberty Lake.......................... 3-12
Table 10 Bike Projects Considered by Spokane County................. 3-13
Table 11 Bike Projects Considered by Spokane Transit ................. 3-18
Table 12 Bike Projects Considered by WSDOT.............................. 3-19
List of Maps
Section 2
Map 2a Nonmotorized and Rail Network, Spokane County ............ 2-4
Section 7
Map 7a Bicycle/Pedestrian Accidents 2003-2005 ........................... 7-7
Appendix A, Public Involvement Matrix (2003-2005)
Appendix B, Public Comments (2008)
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Executive Summary
Part of developing a true multi-modal transportation system for the Spokane
Metropolitan area necessitates a common vision for all modes of transportation
and the understanding of how they can collectively achieve the mobility needs of
the community. This document updates the 1993 Spokane Regional Bicycle and
Pedestrian Plan, which was used to plan, prioritize and fund a substantial
number of non-motorized projects through the Federal Transportation
Enhancement program. Recognizing the importance of each mode of
transportation, this document is being updated separately from the Pedestrian
Plan. This approach provides a clear vision of a community where bicycles can
provide a viable travel choice by connecting neighborhoods with key
destinations, in order to improve personal mobility, health, economy, and the
environment. The Regional Bike Plan details specific goals and objectives, key
regional priorities, and provides recommendations and ideas to jurisdictions
undertaking bicycle planning and network design.
Goals of the Bike Plan are:
1. To increase the mode share of people bicycling for transportation
2. To identify the needs and gaps in the regional bikeway system
3. To support recreational bicycling in the Spokane region to promote physical
activity and potentially stimulate economic growth
4. To enhance awareness and cooperation between all roadway users
The High Priority Bicycle Projects listed below were identified through public
outreach and have been forwarded to local agencies.
1. Completion of the Fish Lake Trail
2. Add strategic bike lanes/improve existing
bike lanes to create a connected system
3. Improve bicycle connections crossing the
Spokane River
4. Create better bike routes from/to the South
Hill
5. Create bicycle lanes in the central business
district
6. Develop a major North/South bike route
7. Improve Bicycling on Northwest Blvd.
8. Improve bike and motorist safety on Hatch
Road from 57th Ave. to S.R. 195
9. Improve Bicycle use on the Maple/Ash
Corridor
10. Improve bicycle crossings on Division St.
Spokane Regional Bike Plan – 2008
11. Improve safety on bike routes with narrow road
widths like Rutter Parkway and Elk-Chatteroy Rd.
12. Create a bicycle friendly route off 5-Mile Prairie
13. Bicycle Improvements in Downriver area
14. Provide safety on the Centennial Trail
15. Incorporate bicycle improvements on Bigelow
Gulch Rd.
16. Identify bicycle improvements on Highway 2 on
the West Plains
17. Incorporate biking improvements on 37th Ave.
18. Improve bicycle connections to Browne’s
Addition
19. Implement bicycle Improvements on Post and
Wall Streets
20. Make bicycle improvements on Assembly St.
Executive Summary - i
The Recommendations for Bike Planning are:
Key Regional Issues
Jurisdictions should plan and retrofit arterial streets with all users in mind.
Plans and Policies
SRTC, through a sub-committee of the TTC, will convene a Non-Motorized or
Active Transportation Technical Committee to encourage the sharing of
information across jurisdictional and state boundaries. The main purpose of the
sub-committee will be educational.
SRTC will review and update, as necessary, the Regional Bicycle Plan
and Map every three to five years.
SRTC will sponsor an annual meeting with the intent of sharing information
amongst the bicycle-oriented groups and advocates within the Spokane area to
achieve funding and implementation of bicycle projects and programs.
Design and Engineering
Jurisdictions should adopt a regional bicycle classification system to avoid
confusion between users, planners and engineers.
Consider the needs of bicyclists when designing and reconstructing intersections
on bicycle routes.
Conveniently spaced, safe crossings should be designed into roadway projects.
Bridge projects should include adequate space for bicyclists.
Ensure that reconstructed at-grade railroad crossings are safe for bicyclists.
Traffic calming programs should consider the needs of bicyclists during the
design and engineering phase.
The jurisdictions should consider adopting ordinances that incorporate bicycleparking requirements into the standards currently required for all new motor
vehicle parking as an element of the zoning code. At a minimum, space to park
two bikes or 10% of car parking (whichever is greater) should be considered.
Maintenance
A regular sweeping program should be considered on streets identified as part of
the bicycle network.
Maintenance and overlay work should include attention to potential hazards for
all users.
Executive Summary - ii
Education, Encouragement, and Enforcement
Bike education programs for young school children should be funded and
expanded in the Spokane area.
Bring training to the area that will help update area planners and engineers on
non-motorized facilities.
Continued support of encouragement campaigns is important to raise awareness
and participation for bicycle commuting.
Provide a map or database to review bicycle-related collision statistics as a
means for allowing input on reducing problems, identifying problem areas, and
improving bicyclist/motorist interaction.
Bicycle and walking trips avoid approximately 35,600,000 miles of vehicle travel
on Spokane’s roadways annually (i.e., removing three days worth of vehicle
travel from the Spokane Region) and prevents 1,674,000 lbs. of carbon
monoxide emissions per year. With the factors of increasing cost of fuel and the
obesity crisis, the motivation to provide a safe and comfortable built-environment
(i.e., non-motorized networks) for everyday travel and exercise is elevated. As
important as the built-environment is continued maintenance of the network, and
supportive projects and programs to educate, encourage, and enforce bicycle
travel.
Executive Summary - iii
SECTION 1
PURPOSE AND OBJECTIVES
PURPOSE AND OBJECTIVES
PURPOSE
This Regional Bike Plan outlines goals and objectives to strive towards as a
community in order to create a safe and efficient environment for bicycle
transportation. Additionally, this Plan lists the regional priorities developed
through the public involvement process, lists projects currently being considered
within the region and reviews various planning, engineering, and encouragement
components.
Bicycling can make a contribution to the overall transportation load. Additionally,
biking is a low-cost transportation mode available to almost everyone. As bike
travel is becoming more mainstream, it also helps meet the needs of the less
fortunate, the young, the elderly, people with disabilities, and others who do not
have access to an automobile for a variety of reasons.
SRTC recognizes the important benefits of bike transportation, which can
improve mobility and safety, enhance the economy, improve the health of the
community and protect the environment.
Mobility and Safety
• Nearly half of all trips in the United States are three miles or less, well within
the boundaries of bicycling and walking trips.
• Building more roads will not adequately mitigate congestion.
• Active transportation investments lead to increased mode share. In
Minneapolis, 20% of all trips involve walking or biking. In Spokane it is only
9%.
Economic
• Car ownership is the second largest expenditure for the average American
household, driving less can free up substantial resources for other needs.
• Trails consistently increase property values along their corridors.
• Trails are the top community amenity that potential homebuyers seek in a
new neighborhood.
Health
• 43% of people with safe places to walk within ten minutes of home meet
recommended activity levels Just 27% of those without safe places to walk do
not meet recommended activity levels.
• Creating and improving places to be active can result in a 25% increase in the
percentage of people who exercise at least three times a week.
Climate
• Automobiles account for about 50% of Washington State energy related CO2
emissions.
Section 1 – Page 1
•
Walking and biking currently yield greater CO2 reductions than other popular
solutions like hybrid cars.
The emphasis now being placed on non-motorized transportation requires an
understanding of bicycles, bicyclists, pedestrian behavior, and transportation
facilities. Non-motorized transportation, when adequately planned for and used,
plays an important part in the overall transportation system. Safe, convenient,
and attractive facilities are essential to encourage safe bicycling.
BACKGROUND
The Spokane region is home to over 400,000 residents and is known for it’s
potential economic vitality in a natural setting while offering a high quality of life to
its residents. Both the City of Spokane and Spokane County put importance on
recreational and nature-related activities.
On the basis of topography, Spokane County is diversified; with mountainous
areas in the northeastern part, hilly areas in most of the northern section of the
county, rolling prairie in part of the southeastern section of the county and in part
of the southwestern section, undulating plains underlain by basalt in the central
and southern parts of the county, and broad alluvial belts in the river valleys.
This setting has a strong draw for recreational cycling. Many cyclists in the
community regard Spokane as having some of the most diverse recreation
cycling in the country. However, navigating throughout the more urban region is
challenging. As for commuter cycling, the urban street system was not well
thought out or planned in advance for cyclists. In order to develop a mode shift
to non-motorized transportation, an identified bicycle network that connects
centers throughout the region would be attractive and useful to many cyclists.
In Spokane County, road standards require eight-foot wide shoulders, but no
sidewalks. The County maintains that the wide shoulder accommodates all nonmotorized users. In the winter months though, the shoulder is used for snow
storage.
A highlight of the regional system is the Centennial Trail that connects the
Spokane area with North Idaho. This trail is an important attribute to the
community, which allows for a Class 1 Separated Path through the region in an
east to west direction.
VISIONS, GOALS, AND OBJECTIVES
Visions
To create a bicycle-friendly community where biking is a viable travel choice that
reduces congestion and pollution.
To provide an accessible, continuous, and safe network of facilities extending
from neighborhoods to key destinations.
To promote, support, and encourage recreational bicycling in the Spokane region
for physical exercise and as a tool for economic development.
To increase the awareness of all citizens and motorists to the need for
cooperative travel throughout the region.
Goals
Goal 1:
Increase the mode-share of people bicycling for
transportation.
Objective 1.1
Increase the number of people who ride bicycles for
transportation.
•
Target employees that live less than five miles from Commute Trip
Reduction (CTR) worksites.
•
Create a bicycle commuter workshop and run it for employees at 20 work
sites per year.
•
Conduct an inventory of secure bicycle parking at CTR centers. Target
worksites without bicycle parking to create safe bicycle parking.
•
Survey potential locations for improved network to access transit stops
by bicycle.
Evaluation Mechanism: Objectives to be recorded and benchmarked by CTR and SRTC travelsurvey and Nu-Stats Survey 2006 and 2010, DKS Pedestrian and
Bicycle Counts, Spokane Transit On-Board Surveys
Objective 1.2
Provide and maintain appropriate facilities to accommodate
and encourage use by bicyclists.
•
Inventory the present condition of routes identified on the Spokane
Regional bicycle system from the 2006 Bicycle Map.
•
Support the identification of new bicycle routes to be adopted by
jurisdictions, prioritize maintenance or improvement of high priority
routes, and encourage the removal of identified routes if they are no
longer appropriate.
•
Seek training opportunities for Engineering and Planning staff on bicycle
facilities.
Evaluation Mechanism: Objectives to be evaluated by SRTC.
Objective 1.3
Ensure that all jurisdictional planning gives attention to
bicycle planning.
•
Encourage the adoption of this Plan into the Growth Management
Planning objectives created by Spokane region jurisdictions.
Evaluation Mechanism: GMA Planning Objectives
Objective 1.4
Provide and maintain support facilities (e.g. bike racks and
lockers).
•
Identify potential bicycle destinations that do not have bike racks and
target locations for bicycle rack installation.
•
Review jurisdictional land use policies to include bicycle racks where
appropriate.
•
Evaluate the current use and future need for Spokane Transit Agency
(STA) bicycle racks and lockers.
Evaluation Mechanism: Objectives to be compiled by SRTC with CTR and STA assistance.
Goal 2:
Identify the needs and gaps in the regional bikeway system.
Objective 2.1
Propose key locations or improvements to connect
neighborhoods and key destinations.
•
Assist in identifying new bicycle projects to be adopted by jurisdictions,
prioritize maintenance or improvement of high priority routes, and
encourage the removal of identified routes if they are no longer
appropriate.
•
Use Inventory results and public input to identify high priority
improvements.
Evaluation Mechanism: SRTC compilation of inventories, police data, public input, Spokane
Regional Health District
Objective 2.2
Improve safety at identified areas.
•
Use accident data to identify dangerous intersections and routes.
Evaluation Mechanism: Police data, STA accident data
Objective 2.3
Provide clear guidance to jurisdictions on how to best improve
existing conditions for bicycling and walking and how to
appropriately plan for the future.
•
Use information gathered through this bicycle plan process to prioritize
key projects;
•
Contact jurisdictions directly of top projects in their area.
Evaluation Mechanism: Public input, SRTC’s Bike Plan, and jurisdictions should be responsible
for their top projects. Meetings will take place through SRTC’s Active
Transportation Technical Committee.
Objective 2.4
Provide information to citizens for keeping bikeways and
intersections clear of debris.
•
Provide phone numbers for jurisdictions to assist cleanup on bikeways
and intersections.
Evaluation Mechanism: Jurisdictions should be responsible for their own roadways.
Objective 2.5
Provide and update (every three to five years) a regional map to
indicate the bikeway network in the area.
Evaluation Mechanism: SRTC Bike Plan.
Goal 3:
Support recreational bicycling in the Spokane region to
promote physical activity and potentially stimulate
economic growth.
Objective 3.1
Provide information to bicyclists where popular recreational
routes are located.
•
Provide online maps of recreation loop-routes for cycling in the Spokane
area.
•
Provide Spokane Regional Bicycle Maps to bike shops and at large
employers throughout the Region.
Evaluation Mechanism: SRTC
Objective 3.2
Encourage biking beyond commuting for health and fitness
purposes.
•
Using a website, public service announcements, and CTR presentations,
encourage bicycling and walking beyond commuting for fitness
purposes.
Evaluation Mechanism: SRTC and Spokane Regional Health District
Objective 3.3
Provide resources where regional bicycle information can be
obtained.
•
Using a website, public service announcements, and CTR presentations,
encourage bicycling beyond commuting for fitness purposes.
•
Provide as much information as possible on potential funding
opportunities for potential projects.
•
Develop a Bicycle Advisory Committee comprised of bike groups and
trail groups to focus on issues specific to the region.
•
Develop a Non-Motorized or Active Technical Transportation Committee
comprised of jurisdictional representatives to focus on issues specific to
the region.
Evaluation Mechanism: SRTC
Objective 3.4
Promote Spokane as a recreational destination for bicycling in
attempts to stimulate economic gain.
•
Support programs to promote Spokane as a destination for great
recreational cycling.
•
Support programs to draw cyclists to the Spokane region.
Evaluation Mechanism: Area Chambers of Commerce
Goal 4:
Enhance awareness and cooperation between all roadway
users.
Objective 4.1
Improve awareness of motorists, bicyclists, and pedestrians as
to their rights and responsibilities.
•
Through increased signage, highlight “share the road” responsibilities.
•
Improve intersection design and visibility where bike lanes intersect
intersections.
•
Use public service announcements and education programs to teach
motorist, cyclists, and pedestrians the rules of the roadway for the purpose of
improved safety and to promote non-motorized transportation.
Evaluation Mechanism: Jurisdictions
Objective 4.2
Improve safety and awareness through planning, engineering,
education, enforcement, and encouragement.
•
Provide design and engineering guidelines for different types of bicycle and
pedestrian facilities, particularly those with high accident volumes.
•
Continue support of programs that support biking and walking.
•
Evaluate enforcement programs for pedestrians and bicyclists with the
appropriate law enforcement agencies.
•
Encourage non-motorized transportation through land-use planning, CTR
programming, and enhancement funding.
Evaluation Mechanism: Police Department, CTR, grants, Comprehensive Plans
SECTION 2
CURRENT NETWORK INVENTORY
AND USAGE
CURRENT NETWORK INVENTORY AND USAGE
EXISTING NETWORK INVENTORY
In Spring of 2006, SRTC released a Spokane Regional Bicycle Map that
indicates the bicycle network within the Spokane region. The map not only
serves to educate the public on the location and type of bicycle network
available, but is an important planning tool for jurisdictions to use for identifying
network gaps and improving continuity. Presently the Spokane Area Bicycle
Network for all of Spokane County consists of approximately 1,050 miles of
identified Class I-Class IV network (descriptions in Section 5, Pages 2-3).
Additionally, only 25 miles of roadways are prohibited from bicycle travel.
The Spokane Regional Bicycle Map, available at www.srtc.org on the
'Bicycle/Pedestrian Resource' page, depicts the bicycle network within the
Metropolitan Area. Map 2a of this Plan indicates the County-Wide Non-motorized
and Rail Network.
EXISTING BICYCLE USAGE, SURVEY RESULTS
In late 2006, SRTC partnered with NuStats, a survey research and consulting
firm, and the University of Minnesota, to conduct a non-motorized (NM)
transportation study in Spokane County (Nonmotorized Transportation Pilot
Program Evaluation Study. University of Minnesota. 2007). Communities
surveyed included: Marin County, CA; Minneapolis, MN; Sheboygan, WI;
Columbia, MO, and Spokane, WA.
Spokane County serves as a control group for a NM transportation pilot program
that provided four other aforementioned “pilot” communities with $25 million
dollars for NM infrastructure facilities and programs. All areas were surveyed in
2006 and will be surveyed again in 2010 to determine if NM investment changes
bicycle, walking, and transit usage. About 6,000 households in Spokane County
were sent a survey to complete and another 400 households participated through
telephone and internet surveys. Table 1 shows the mode split for each mode in
the community. The vehicle mode split includes the number of trips taken by
single-occupant vehicles while the rideshare mode-split includes vehicle trips
with more than one occupant. Non-auto mode share (the use of modes other
than automobile, including walking, bicycling, and transit) ranges from 8.5% in
Sheboygan to 29.3% in Minneapolis, with Spokane showing 13.4 %.
Table 1
Share of Total Person Trips by Mode
Community
Vehicle % Rideshare % Walk % Bicycle % Transit %
86
2.2
8.6
1.5
2.2
Columbia, MO
82
1.4
11.8
1.8
3.2
Marin County, CA
69
2.2
17.6
2
9.7
Minneapolis, MN
89
2.4
6.6
0.7
1.2
Sheboygan, WI
82
2.1
11.2
1.5
4.1
Average for Pilots
Spokane, WA
85
2
8.5
0.8
4.1
A National Household survey indicates that 40% of all trips are less than 3 miles
in length. This indicates that the potential to serve more trips by non-auto use is
a realistic possibility. Table 2 shows the bicycle and pedestrian trip statistics for
Spokane County and demonstrates that our daily trip distance on the bicycle is
averaged at 8.55 miles, while the daily trip distance for pedestrians is 2.18 miles.
Overall estimates indicated that this type of minimal bike and pedestrian usage
adds up when accumulated over the year and eliminates approximately
35,635,777 Vehicle Miles Travelled (VMT) from the area per year. Further
assumption could be made from this VMT reduction to indicate savings in vehicle
emissions and fuel consumption. Additionally, connections are being made by
the health community that having a built-environment that supports transportation
choices can offer daily exercise opportunities and improve fitness and health.
Table 2
Transportation Usage Statistics
Mode
Bicycle
Average Daily Trips
Average Trip Distance
Average Trip Duration
Pedestrian
Average Daily Trips
Average Trip Distance
Average Trip Duration
Percent of Trips to/from Transit via bike/walk
Percent of Trips to/from Transit via driving
Reduced Auto Use due to bike/walk (miles
per adult in Spokane County)
Total Annual estimated Reduction in auto
travel due to bike/walk (in miles)
Spokane
2.45
8.55 miles
51.3 min.
2.0
2.18 miles
43.6 min.
22%
78%
0.31
35,635,777
The following data is more information from the NMTPP Survey. The entire
survey can be found at www.srtc.org on the ‘Bike/Pedestrian Resources Page’
under the heading ‘Bike/Ped-Related Documents.’
Walking and Biking Behaviors
• Spokane County citizens on average walk about 1/2 mile one-way to
commute, while they bike about 1.5 miles on a one-way bike-commute (the
lowest of the cities in the pilot project).
•
About 1% of trips in Spokane County are by bike and 9% of trips in Spokane
County are by walking.
Attitudes toward Walking and Biking
• More than 55% of respondents were somewhat or very satisfied with walking
opportunities.
•
Only 36% felt satisfied about cycling opportunities and 8 percent were very
dissatisfied with cycling opportunities, the largest dissatisfied group in the pilot
project.
•
69% felt there were bike lanes, paths, or routes that connected their home to
places they wanted to ride to.
Getting to School
• 42% of school children are dropped off in a vehicle at school.
• Of the parents surveyed, 58% stated that the lack of sidewalks and bikeways
make the roadways unsafe for their children to bike or walk to school.
Motivations to Walk or Bike More Often
The following are improvements that 50% or more of respondents said would
likely get them to walk or bike more:
•
•
•
•
•
More destinations close to home (walk)
More marked bike lanes on existing streets (bike)
More off-street bike paths (bike)
Motorists who obey traffic laws (bike)
Areas free of fast moving traffic (bike)
60% of the respondents
stated more money should be
spent to improve walking and
biking infrastructure such as
sidewalks, bike lanes, and
trails in our community.
SECTION 3
KEY REGIONAL ISSUES
KEY REGIONAL ISSUES
HIGH PRIORITY PROJECTS IDENTIFIED DURING PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT
In order for a region to have a healthy non-motorized population, connectivity
within the region is paramount. For bicycling, the outlying areas must
connect to urban areas on a safe and well-marked facility. Urban areas
should also support bicycle facilities to promote and encourage furthering
non-motorized transportation. From a regional perspective, connectivity from
the outlying areas inward to urban centers is an important component of this plan
to shift vehicular trips onto the non-motorized network.
Recommendation: Jurisdictions should plan and retrofit arterial streets with all
users in mind.
The following table identifies, through the SRTC public involvement process, high
priority bicycle projects.
Table 3
High Priority Bicycle Projects
1. Completion of the Fish Lake Trail
2. Add strategic bike lanes/improve existing
bike lanes to create a connected system
3. Improve bicycle connections crossing the
Spokane River
4. Create better bike routes from/to the
South Hill
5. Create bicycle lanes in the central
business district
6. Develop a major North/South bike route
7. Improve Bicycling on Northwest Blvd.
8. Improve bike and motorist safety on
Hatch Road from 57th Ave. to S.R. 195
9. Improve Bicycle use on the Maple/Ash
Corridor
10. Improve bicycle crossings on Division
St.
11. Improve safety on bike routes with narrow road
widths like Rutter Parkway and Elk-Chatteroy Rd.
12. Create a bicycle friendly route off 5-Mile Prairie
13. Bicycle Improvements in Downriver area
14. Provide safety on the Centennial Trail
15. Incorporate bicycle improvements on Bigelow
Gulch Rd.
16. Identify bicycle improvements on Highway 2 on
the West Plains
17. Incorporate biking improvements on 37th Ave.
18. Improve bicycle connections to Browne’s
Addition
19. Implement bicycle Improvements on Post and
Wall Streets
20. Make bicycle improvements on Assembly St.
SRTC will work with the appropriate jurisdictions to alert them to the regional
projects that are priorities for bicycling in the area. Additionally, through the
introduction of a Bicycle and Pedestrian Advocacy Committee, SRTC will keep a
database of up-to-date non-motorized projects in the Region. The following
tables include the non-motorized projects at various levels of planning in each
jurisdiction. Some projects are fully funded; most appear in supporting planning
documents but are unfunded while others are conceptual plans at this time.
Section 3 –Page 1
AIRWAY HEIGHTS PROJECTS
This table shows projects being considered by Airway Heights.
Table 4
Bike Projects Considered by City of Airway Heights
Projects
Description
Support
Sidewalk Infill
Program
Project infill
City of Airway
existing sidewalk Heights
vacancies
Comprehensive
Plan
Comprehensive
Project provides City of Airway
City Wide Pathway a system of
Heights
Plan
paths throughout Comprehensive
the City to
Plan
interconnect and
provide linkages
Connection to
FAFB
a bike route
Heights
through the
Comprehensive
community to
Plan
FAFB entrance
Connection to
Project
City of Airway
Centennial Trail
establishes a
Heights
connection to
Comprehensive
Centennial trail Plan
that is north of
City limits
Connection to
Medical Lake
a bike path along Heights
Craig & 902 that Comprehensive
will connect to
Plan
Medical Lake's
existing
HWY 2 and Airway Overhead or
Six-year
Heights at Russell below grade
Transportation
Road
pedestrian
Plan
bridges
(identified within
our 6 yr
transportation
plan)
Other
Support
Secured
Funding
None
None
None
Friends of the None
Centennial
Trail
Traffic Safety None
Commission
Traffic Safety None
Commission
Section 3 –Page 2
Projects
Description
Heights at King
below grade
Street
pedestrian
bridges
(identified within
our 6 yr
transportation
plan)
Heights at Ziegler below grade
Street
pedestrian
bridges
(identified within
our 6 yr
transportation
plan)
Support
Six-Year
Transportation
Plan
Six-Year
Transportation
Plan
Other
Support
Secured
Funding
None
None
Section 3 –Page 3
CENTENNIAL TRAIL PROJECTS
The Spokane River Centennial Trail Gaps Plan, December 2007 outlines projects
that bridge current gaps in the Centennial Trail system. The following projects
are outlined in the Plan:
Table 5
Bike Projects Considered for the Centennial Trail
Projects
Description
Support
Other
Support
Secured
Funding
Mission
Street
Underpass
Construct a Mission
Avenue underpass
to connect the trail
through Mission
Park to Upriver
Drive avoiding a
dangerous
intersection
A variety of
treatments and a
bridge project to
achieve a clear and
simple alignment
between Spokane
Falls Community
College and the
proposed Kendall
Yards development
Spokane
County Trails
Plan
Spokane
River
Centennial
Trail Gaps,
December
2007
No
Spokane
County Trails
Plan
Spokane
River
Centennial
Trail Gaps,
December
2007
No
Kendall
Yards to
SFCC Gap
Section 3 –Page 4
CHENEY PROJECTS
The City of Cheney also has the following projects in their Six-Year Street
Transportation Program:
Table 6
Bike Projects Considered by the City of Cheney
Projects
Description
Cheney-Spangle
Road Project
Support
Other Support
2093 linear feet Six-Year Street
of sidewalk and Transportation
bicycle lane
Program
improvement
Cheney Research 1700 linear feet Six-Year Street US Dept. of
and Industrial Park of new
Transportation Commerce
sidewalk
Program
Grant
Simpson Parkway 2600 linear feet Six-Year Street
Extension, N 6th to of new
Transportation
Washington
sidewalks and Program
bike lanes
N 8th Street
Extension
of new
Transportation
sidewalk and Program
bicycle lanes
Mullinix Road
Extension Project of new
Transportation
sidewalk and Program
bicycle lanes
Secured
Funding
None
Partial
None
None
None
Section 3 –Page 5
CITY OF SPOKANE PROJECTS
The City of Spokane is currently working on their Master Bike Plan. The new
Master Bike Plan is focusing on route connectivity within the City of Spokane
limits. The adoption of routes in the City of Spokane is critical to the mobility of
our region. Adding bicycle facilities within and connecting the downtown, the
largest employment center in our region, to the outlying neighborhoods is
currently being considered. In addition, the City of Spokane’s Regional Bikeway
Network map can be found in the City of Spokane’s Comprehensive Plan at
www.spokaneplanning.org under the 'Documents' heading.
This table is a compilation of partially funded and unfunded projects being
considered by the City of Spokane.
Table 7
Bike Projects Considered by the City of Spokane
Projects
Fish Lake Trail
Description
16 mile Class I,
separated path
from Cheney to
Spokane
Post Street Bridge Refurbishing
bridge for
pedestrian and
bicycle access
Ben Burr from
Dedicated bicycle
Liberty to Park to facilities between
Centennial Trail Liberty Park and
Centennial Trail
Support
Six Year
Comprehensive
Street
Program/Funded
Section
Six Year
Comprehensive
Street Program
/Funded Section
Six Year
Comprehensive
Street
Program/Funded
Section
Ben Burr from
Class 1,
Six Year
Liberty to Park to separated path
Comprehensive
Underhill
Street
Program/Funded
Section
U-District Bike
Bicycle and
Six Year
and Ped Bridge pedestrian bridge Comprehensive
in the U-District Street Program
/Unfunded Section
37th Ave Bike
Mixture of Class Six Year
Lanes on Grand IV, shared-use
Comprehensive
to Regal
lanes and infill
Street Program
missing sidewalks /Unfunded Section
Other Support
Secured
Funding
Spokane County Partial
Trails Plan
GTEC
Partial
GTEC, City of
Spokane
Comprehensive
Plan
None
None
U-District Master None
Strategic Plan
Southside
Transportation
Study, SRTC
None
Section 3 –Page 6
Projects
Downtown Bike
Network
City of Spokane
Sidewalk Infill
Program
Bicycle Blvd.
Bicycle Map in
City of Spokane
Comp. Plan
Iron Bridge
Division St.
Ped/Bike
Improvements
Description
Dedicated bicycle
facilities in the
downtown core
Inventory and
replace missing
sidewalk
segments
Pilot project to
develop bicycle
boulevards
Support
Other Support
DKS DRAFT Plan
None
Community
Development
Area/GTEC
City Council
GTEC
Resolution
December, 17
2007
Various bike
City of Spokane
facilities identified Comprehensive
on the City of
Plan
Spokane Bike
Map
Refurbish
Spokane County COS/Community
abandoned
Trails Plan
Dev Area/Urailroad bridge
district Master
over the Spokane
Strategic Plan
River
Various bike and Will be in the
Multi-agency
pedestrian safety unfunded section support (City,
improvements
of Six Year
County, WSDOT,
Comprehensive
STA)
Street Program
when Division
Study is completed
Secured
Funding
None
None
None
None
None
Section 3 –Page 7
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY PROJECTS
The City of Spokane Valley is updating their bicycle map for the next
Comprehensive Plan update. Spokane Valley currently has funding for the
following projects that include the construction of bike lanes and sidewalks.
Table 8
Projects
Bike Projects Considered by the City of Spokane Valley
Description
Support
Other Support
Secured
Funding
Pines
Reconstruct Mansfield
City of Spokane
Rd./Mansfield Ave. between Montgomery & Valley - Six Year
Project
Pines and improvements Transportation
to intersections along
Improvement
Pines Road at the I-90
Program
Interchange
Appleway Ave.
Reconstruct Appleway to City of Spokane
from Tschirley Ave. a 5 lane roadway with
Valley - Six Year
to east City limits sidewalk on the north, 10’ Transportation
multi-use pathway on the Improvement
south and bike lanes on Program
both sides of the road.
Private Developer Yes
contributions
Barker Rd. Bridge Replace existing
City of Spokane
Replacement
deteriorating bridge with Valley - Six Year
Project
a new bridge
Transportation
Improvement
Program
44th Avenue
Sands Rd. to Woodruff City of Spokane
Pathway Project
Rd. (Ponderosa
Valley - Six Year
neighborhood)
Transportation
Improvement
Program
Broadway Ave.
Reconstruct Broadway City of Spokane
Improvements Avenue to a three lane Valley - Six Year
Moore Rd. to Flora section to include
Transportation
Rd
sidewalks and bike lanes Improvement
Program
Broadway Ave.
Restripe existing 4 lane City of Spokane
Safety
road to 3 lanes with
Valley - Six Year
Improvements
bicycle lanes from Park Transportation
Road to Pines Road
Improvement
Program
Yes
Spokane Transit Yes
Authority
Ponderosa
Neighborhood
support through
public mtgs.
Yes
Private Developer Yes
contributions
Yes
Section 3 –Page 8
Projects
Other Support
Secured
Funding
Sprague/Appleway Convert Sprague to 2Subarea Plan
- Argonne Road to way reduce from 7 to 5
University Road
lanes between Argonne
and University, convert
Appleway to 2-way from
Argonne to University
Comp Plan
None
Sprague/Appleway Extend Appleway from
Subarea Plan
- University Road University to Evergreen,
to Evergreen Road convert Sprague to 2-way
between University and
Evergreen
Sprague/Appleway Convert Sprague to two- Subarea Plan
- I-90 to Argonne way between Argonne &
Road
I-90, convert Appleway to
2-way between Thierman
and Dishman-Mica
Comprehensive
Plan
Partial
Comprehensive
Plan
None
Sprague/Appleway Extend Appleway as a 3 Subarea Plan
- Evergreen Road lane street to Sullivan,
to Tshirley Road reduce Sprague from 7 to
5 lanes between
Evergreen and Sullivan
Park Rd - Bridging Construct a bridge to
City of Spokane
the Valley/BNSF allow
Valley - Six Year
Grade Separation vehicle/pedestrian/bicycle Transportation
traffic over the BNSF
Improvement
tracks at Trent Avenue. Program
8th Avenue
This project will widen 8th City of Spokane
Reconstruction
Avenue from Havana to Valley - Six Year
Phase 1
Park Road to an urban 3- Transportation
lane section with
Improvement
sidewalks and bike lanes Program
Comprehensive
Plan
None
Spokane
Metropolitan
Transportation
Plan
Partial
Flora Road
Reconstruction
Description
Reconstruct Flora Road
to a three-lane arterial
section with sidewalks
and bike lanes from
Sprague Avenue to
Mission Avenue.
Support
None
City of Spokane
Valley - Six Year
Transportation
Improvement
Program
None
Section 3 –Page 9
Projects
Description
Support
Other Support
Secured
Funding
Park Rd Project 2 - Reconstruct Park Road City of Spokane
Broadway Ave to to a five-lane arterial with Valley - Six Year
Indiana Ave
sidewalks and bike lanes Transportation
linking Broadway Avenue Improvement
to the new overpass at Program
the BNSF tracks and
Trent Avenue.
PE
Phase
funded
32nd Ave
Reconstruction Evergreen Rd to
Best Rd
None
Reconstruct 32nd
City of Spokane
Avenue from Evergreen Valley - Six Year
Rd to Best Road (City
Transportation
limits) with a three-lane Improvement
arterial with sidewalks
Program
and bike lanes. This
project would connect
with a County project
from Best Road that will
continue the
improvement to Sullivan
Rd
Barker Rd
Reconstruct Barker Road City of Spokane
Reconstruction - to a five-lane section with Valley - Six Year
Appleway Ave to center turn lane from
Transportation
Broadway Ave
Appleway Avenue to
Improvement
Broadway Avenue.
Program
Evergreen Rd
Reconstruct Evergreen City of Spokane
Reconstruction - Road from 32nd Avenue Valley - Six Year
16th Ave to 32nd to 16th Avenue to a three- Transportation
lane urban section
Improvement
Ave
Program
Broadway Ave Construct a 3-lane urban City of Spokane
Flora Rd to Barker arterial from Flora Road Valley - Six Year
Rd
to Barker Road with
Transportation
curbs, gutters, and
Improvement
sidewalks
Program
Millwood-Spokane 10' wide Multi-use trail
Valley Trail
over old BNSF RR RW
and Spokane County
sewer between Fancher
Road to Evergreen Road
None
None
None
None
Section 3 –Page 10
Projects
Description
Support
Other Support
North Greenacres 10' wide Multi-use trail
Trail
over old BNSF RR RW
and Spokane County
sewer between Sullivan
Road to Liberty Lake
University Road
Pedestrian bridge over IPedestrian Bridge 90 including bicycle
facilities from
Millwood/Spokane Valley
Trail to Valley Mission
Park
Secured
Funding
None
None
LIBERTY LAKE PROJECTS
The City of Liberty Lake has submitted the following projects:
Table 9
Bike Projects Considered by Liberty Lake
Projects
Description
Support
Indiana
2 miles Class 1,
separated path 10'
wide from Hodges
to Harvard
1/2 mile Class 1,
separated 10' path
from Liberty Lake
to Valley Way
1 mile Class 1,
separated path 10'
wide from Valley
Way south one
mile
1/2 mile Class 1,
separated 10' path
from Liberty Lake
to Valley Way
Bicycle and
pedestrian bridge
from Mission to
Appleway
Local Trail
and Street
Plan
Sprague
Lakeside
Mission
County Vista
Other
Support
Other
developments
are planning
access
Comp Plan
no
Local Trail
and Street
Plan
Comp Plan
no
Local Trail
and Street
Plan
Comp Plan
no
Local Trail
and Street
Plan
Rocky Hill
no
Neighborhood
Plan
Local Trail
and Street
Plan
Secured
Funding
no
SPOKANE COUNTY PROJECTS
Bike projects being considered by Spokane County are as follows:
Table 10
Bike Projects Considered by Spokane County
Projects
Description
Centennial
Trail at Sontag
Park to Lake
Spokane (Long
Lake) Resort.
Extend Centennial
Trail from Sontag
Park to Lake
Spokane (Long
Lake) Resort.
Support
Other Support
Secured
Funding
Spokane County Inland Northwest
Fully Funded
Regional Trails Trails Coalition, Non
Plan (1E),
profit organizations,
Spokane County government
Parks Plan,
agencies, school
Centennial Trail districts, local
Master Plan
businesses and
neighborhoods.
Link to Carlson Pave Carlson
Inland Northwest
None
Road
Road connection
Trails Coalition, Non
to Centennial Trail
government
agencies, school
districts, local
businesses and
neighborhoods
Spokane's
Realign the
Gateway Park Centennial Trail at
Spokane's
Gateway Park to
provide a safe
crossing under
Spokane Bridge
Road.
None
Plan (1G),
agencies, school
Parks Plan,
Centennial Trail districts, local
businesses, Liberty
Master Plan,
Liberty Lake
Lake,
Community Trail neighborhoods.
system Plan,
Idaho State
Parks
Projects
Description
Support
Other Support
Secured
Funding
Rail Trail in
North Spokane
to Newport,
WA
Develop rails to
trails or other
separated
pathway
connecting North
Spokane to
Newport, WA,
generally
paralleling
Highway 2
Five Mile
Prairie Loop
Trail
Plan and possible Spokane County Inland Northwest
None
develop 5 Mile
Prairie Loop Trail Plan (5D),
providing
Parks Plan,
connections to
agencies, local
Holmberg
Mead School
businesses and
Conservation
District
neighborhoods.
Area, Sky Prairie
park, Austin
Ravine
Conservation
Area, and the Little
Spokane River
Natural Area.
Possible extension
to Cedar Rd.
Connection
None
between the
Columbia Plateau Plan, Turnbull profit organizations,
Trail and the
National Wildlife government
public-use area at Refuge Master agencies, school
the Turnbull
Plan.
districts, local
Wildlife Refuge.
businesses and
neighborhoods.
Connect
Columbia
Plateau Trail
Dream Trail
None
Plan (4B),
Parks Plan, Little agencies, school
Spokane Valley districts, local
Concept Plan, businesses and
neighborhoods.
Trail between
None
Dishman Hills
Natural Area and Plan, Spokane profit organizations,
Iller Creek
County Parks
government
Conservation Area Plan.
agencies, school
districts, local
businesses and
neighborhoods.
Projects
Description
Support
Other Support
Secured
Funding
City of Liberty
Lake and
Liberty Lake
County
Regional Park
Provide a safe trail Spokane County Inland Northwest
None
connection
between the City Plan, Spokane profit organizations,
of Liberty Lake
County Parks
government
and Liberty Lake Plan, Liberty
agencies, school
County Regional Lake Community districts, local
Park
Trails System
businesses and
Plan.
neighborhoods.
Mica Peak trail
from Liberty
Lake Regional
Park
Procure and
None
develop a trail
connection that
Plan, Spokane profit organizations,
provides access to County Parks
government
Mica Peak from
Plan.
agencies, school
Liberty Lake
districts, local
Regional Park and
businesses,
state lands.
neighborhoods.
Gleneden trail Gleneden trail
paving project
Washington
Inland Northwest
None
State
Department of profit organizations,
Transportation, government
Little Spokane agencies, school
River Valley
districts, local
Concept Plan, businesses,
Six Year
neighborhoods.
Transportation
Improvement
Program
Golden to Little Class 1, separated Spokane County Inland Northwest
None
Spokane Trails path connecting Regional Trails Trails Coalition, Non
Network
Golden to existing Plan, Spokane profit organizations,
path, about I mile County Parks
government
to the south
Plan, Little
agencies, school
Spokane River districts, local
Valley Concept businesses,
Plan, Six Year neighborhoods.
Transportation
Improvement
Program
Projects
Description
Support
Midway Little
Spokane
Link to Midway
Little Spokane
portion from
Columbus to
Golden Road
Trail from Ben
Burr to Moran
Prairie
Elementary
School
Class , separated Six Year
path from Ben
Transportation
Burr to Moran
Improvement
Prairie
Program,
Elementary School Southeast
Spokane Trails
Master Plan,
Other Support
Secured
Funding
Fully Funded
Plan, Spokane profit organizations,
County Parks
government
Plan, Little
agencies, school
Spokane River districts, local
Valley Concept businesses,
Plan, Six Year neighborhoods.
Transportation
Improvement
Program
Glenrose (Rd) Glenrose (Rd) Link
Inland Northwest
None
Link to
to Centennial Trail
Centennial
Trail
government
agencies, school
districts, local
businesses,
Glenrose
neighborhood.
Dartford Drive Dartford Drive
Six Year
Inland Northwest
Partial
Trail in
Trail to Cross
Transportation Trails Coalition, Non
conjunction
River and Connect Improvement
with Little
to Little Spokane Program, Little government
Spokane
Trail Network, only Spokane Valley agencies, school
Bridge
fixing trail ends
Concept Plan. districts, local
businesses,
neighborhoods.
Inland Northwest
None
government
agencies, school
districts, local
businesses,
neighborhoods.
Projects
Description
Support
Rutter Parkway Rutter Parkway
Link
Link to Little
Spokane Natural
Area & Indian Trail
Road
Wandermere
path
Wandermere path
from Little
Spokane Bridge to
Wandermere mall,
also connects to
North Spokane
Corridor path
Other Support
Secured
Funding
Inland Northwest
None
government
agencies, school
districts, local
businesses,
neighborhoods.
Six Year
Transportation
Improvement
Program
Inland Northwest
government
agencies, school
districts, local
businesses,
neighborhoods.
Various
Conceptual Trails Spokane County Inland Northwest
Conceptual
Planning for Right Regional Trails Trails Coalition, Non
Trails Planning of Way and route Plan, Spokane profit organizations,
for Right of
alternatives: 5A, 5- County Parks
government
Way and route B, 5-H, 5-O, 5-Q Plan
agencies, school
alternatives 5A, from County Trails
districts, local
5-B, 5-H, 5-O, Plan
businesses,
5-Q.
neighborhoods.
Travel Green
Campaign
Employers
encourage
employees to
travel green
Bike to Work
Program
Promote the use CTR Plans
of trails to bike to
work
WSDOT
None
Pedestrian and
Bicycle
Education and
Safety Project
The project will
promote bicycle and
education and
safety through
public service
announcements,
instructor training,
community
education and
printed materials.
SRTC
Partial
Contained within Business and
the cities
employers
sustainable
living program
Development
bond
currently
held for
future
construction.
However
funding is
needed.
None
Six Year
Transportation
Improvement
Program
Partial
SPOKANE TRANSIT AUTHORITY PROJECTS
Spokane Transit Authority (STA) is considering the following non-motorized
projects:
Table 11
Bike Projects Considered by Spokane Transit Authority
Projects
Description
Support
Mission &
Greene
Community
Transit Center
14 acre park &
ride/transfer
facility adjacent to
SCC, connection
to NSC bike/ped
path to
Centennial Trail
Potential park &
ride adjacent to
NSC, trailhead for
bike/ped path
2008-2014
Transit
Development
Plan,
WSDOT NSC
preliminary
plans
2008-2014
Transit
Development
Plan,
WSDOT NSC
preliminary
plans
2008-2014
Transit
Development
Plan
Farwell Park &
Ride
Transit
Shelters, Signage
Enhancements and ADA
improvements
Other
Secured
Support
Funding
State Office of Partial
Transportation
Mobility Grant
No
Partial
WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION PROJECTS
The Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) also has some
projects in the works.
Table 12
Bike Projects Considered by WSDOT
Projects
North South
Corridor Path
New Bike/Ped
path along north
side of US2
Fish Lake Trail
Segment
Description
Support
Secured
Funding
10.5 mile Class WSDOT State EIS, part of the Partial
1, separated
Bike Plan,
SRTC
path adjacent Approximately Metropolitan
to proposed
5.5 miles funded Transportation
North South
by the State
Plan
Corridor
Class 1,
separated path
along north
side of US2
between
Calispel Ave
and 7th St.
1.2 miles of
Class 1
separated path
along future
arterial parallel
to US 195
State Bicycle
Facilities and
Pedestrian
Walkways Plan
None
SRTC
Metropolitan
Transportation
Plan
None
Other Support
SECTION 4
PLANS AND POLICIES
PLANS AND POLICIES
Bicyclists legally have the same rights and responsibilities as motorists, and can
ride on most public roads within the Spokane Region. Bicyclists should be
expected on all streets. Many streets, including those with low speeds or low
traffic volumes, accommodate bicycles safely with no special accommodation.
However, a recommended bicycle system as outlined in the 2006 Spokane
Regional Bicycle Map included a variety of bicycle lanes, shared roadways, and
shared use paths. A bicycle system is a network of facilities that, for a variety of
reasons, provide a superior level of service for bicyclists.
METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION
The Spokane Regional Transportation Council (SRTC) is required by federal law
to perform transportation planning in Spokane County. Thus, SRTC is required to
develop a multi-modal transportation plan that forecasts population and traffic
growth at least 20 years into the future.
The Mission of SRTC is to provide for the safe and efficient movement of people
and goods into, within and through the Spokane Region with an integration of
balanced multi-modal transportation choices.
One of SRTC’s centralized goals is develop a balanced, integrated, and multimodal transportation system which serves the existing and future needs of the
area and provide convenient choice among modes for trips into and out of
Spokane’s metropolitan area, for work, school, shopping, personal business, and
recreation purposes.
Policy:
The SRTC Regional Bike Plan is integrated into the Metropolitan Transportation
Plan (MTP), and bicycle projects will be included in the Transportation
Improvement Program (TIP) as they are funded.
Recommendations:
SRTC, through a sub-committee of the TTC, will convene a Non-Motorized or
Active Transportation Technical Committee to encourage the sharing of
information across jurisdictional and state boundaries. The main purpose of the
sub-committee will be educational.
SRTC will review and update, as necessary, the Regional Bicycle Plan every
three to five years.
SRTC will sponsor an annual meeting with the intent of sharing information
amongst the bicycle-oriented groups and advocates within the Spokane area to
achieve funding and implementation of bicycle projects and programs.
Additionally, Spokane’s Metropolitan Transportation Plan (MTP) 2007-2030
contains many policy statements that support land use decisions, parking policies
and general non-motorized polices that are beneficial to all users. Go to
www.srtc.org on the ‘Documents, Plans, & Policies’ page to view the goals and
policies included in the MTP.
TRANSIT
Improving the bicycle-transit link is an important part of making bicycling a part of
daily life. Linking bicycles with transit overcomes such barriers as steep terrain,
poor weather, and concerns about riding at night. It extends the range of
destinations that people can reach without a private vehicle. This is important for
those who do not have an automobile, live in an area where riding is only
convenient in one direction, as well as those who choose not to, or cannot, drive.
The bicycle-transit link can also make access to transit less expensive. In some
locations, population densities are too low to offer transit service within walking
distance (i.e., ¼ mile) of every commuter. Within the last few years, Spokane
Transit has built park-and-rides to attract commuters and to function as
Community Transit Centers (CTC) (transfers, hubs for various levels of service).
A good example of a CTC is the South Hill Park and Ride. It isn’t a typical
commuter park-and-ride (near a freeway served by express routes). It functions
as a hub for several routes and provides a convenient, safe, and informed point
for transfers while also providing parking for commuters. And the CTCs have
amenities for other modes as well, such as bike lockers.
As activity at a CTC grows, Spokane Transit has had opportunity to add services
appropriate to the area (commuter express, neighborhood circulators or shuttles,
regional connectors, etc.). Bicycling to transit instead of driving benefits Spokane
by reducing taxpayer costs, air pollution, demand for park-and-ride land, and
energy consumption, and traffic congestion with relatively low cost investments.
There are four main components of bicycle-transit integration:
•
•
•
•
Allowing bicycles on transit
Offering bicycle parking at transit locations
Improving bike facilities to transit stops
Encouraging usage of bicycle and transit programs
To enable and encourage the use of transit and bicycling, bike racks should be
provided on all buses. This allows flexibility. If the weather turns bad during the
day, a bicyclist can take the bus home and still bring the bike. A cyclist can take
the bus to work in the morning and bike home in the evening, or vice versa.
When long-term bike parking (such as bike lockers) is provided, people can bike
to the bus stop and then store their bikes instead of having to bring the bike
along. Alternately, people can keep a bike on the destination end of the trip:
take the bus to downtown, for instance, and then bike to work from the transfer
center.
In order to use transit, people must be able to reach the transit stops. The bicycle
system around transit stops, therefore, is important. When developing the bicycle
system, location of transit routes and stops will be considered. The following
steps would improve the
transit and bicycle
connection.
•
•
•
Provide bike parking at
major transit stops and
transfer points, including
short-term and/or longterm parking.
• Ensure that all buses and
potential downtown
trolleys have racks to
carry bicycles, or allow
bicycles on-board.
Advertise the availability of bike racks on buses and bike parking.
Survey the need for bicycle network or parking to improve the bicycle/transit
relationship.
TRIP REDUCTION
Trip reduction, also known as transportation demand management, means
reducing the number of people driving alone, rather than continuing to increase
road capacity. In 2006, the Washington State Legislature passed the Commute
Trip Reduction (CTR) Efficiency Act that requires local governments in those
counties experiencing the greatest automobile-related air pollution and traffic
congestion to develop and implement plans to reduce single-occupant vehicle
trips. SRTC has prepared a regional CTR plan in accordance with RCW
70.94.527(6).
In the Spokane region, those affected jurisdictions are Airway Heights, City of
Spokane, City of Spokane Valley, Liberty Lake, and Spokane County. The cities
of Cheney and Medical Lake have been CTR-affected since the original CTR law
was passed in 1991. Both cities have elected to opt in and remain in the
program without interruption. They have both completed CTR Plans, signed
intergovernmental agreements with Spokane County to implement CTR on
behalf of the cities, and will update their CTR ordinances in accordance with the
CTR Efficiency Act, in the spring of 2008.
Additionally, Downtown Spokane, in coordination with the University
District, has been designated and funded as a Growth and Transportation
Efficiency Center (GTEC). The GTEC designation indicates a geographical area
ripe for trip reduction and will have an increased focus for CTR strategies. The
Downtown GTEC has seed money from the Washington State Department of
Transportation for on-going trip reduction planning and implementation.
Bicycling is one of the transportation choices promoted through the CTR
program. The commute trip has been the target of most efforts, focusing on
getting employers to offer incentive programs. Over a six-year period the
regional goal of the CTR program is to reduce drive alone trips by 10% and
reduce VMT by 13% from present levels.
Strategies to do so specifically encourage bicycling, meaning employers should
make secure, protected bicycle parking available for employees. Showers, or
partnerships with nearby health clubs for shower use, also helps during summer
months. In downtown areas, bicycling is usually faster than either walking or
driving. Many workplaces have Wellness or Health Programs that encourage
employees to walk on their lunch hour or work out at gyms. Encouraging
employees to bicycle to work should be integrated into these programs.
Policy:
SRTC will work with the CTR Program to encourage employers to implement
incentive programs and develop facilities to encourage employees to bicycle to
work.
LAND USE
The convenience of bicycling is influenced by land use patterns, which are
guided by land use regulations. Land use patterns that make bicycling easier
include higher housing densities, mixed use zoning, and grid street patterns.
Mixed use zoning and higher densities allow people to live closer to schools,
parks, work, and shopping so that bicycling and walking are practical choices for
transportation. Grid street patterns disperse traffic because they offer many
alternative routes. Grid patterns usually result in shorter trip distances to
destinations than cul-de-sac patterns.
Integrating land use and transportation planning allows new developments to
implement these strategies from the beginning. Infill development can help meet
some of these goals in established areas of the community. Changes in zoning
laws and subdivision regulations are necessary to support balanced
transportation.
SRTC’s MTP includes several policy statement that encouraging land use design
supportive of non-motorized transportation through zoning codes. To see
policies in the MTP use the following link www.srtc.org on the ‘Documents, Plans,
& Policies’ page.
POTENTIAL BICYCLE POLICY LANGUAGE FOR LOCAL COMPREHENSIVE
PLANS
1. Appropriate bicycle and pedestrian facilities should be established in new
construction and reconstruction projects in all urbanized areas unless one or
more of three conditions are met:
•
•
•
Bicyclists and pedestrians are prohibited by law from using the
roadway. In this instance, a greater effort may be necessary to
accommodate bicyclists and pedestrians elsewhere within the right–ofway or within the same transportation corridor.
The cost of establishing bikeways or walkways would be excessively
disproportionate to the need or probable use. Excessively
disproportionate is defined as exceeding twenty percent of the cost of
the larger transportation project.
Sparse population or other factors indicate an absence of need.
2. In rural areas, paved shoulders should be included in all new construction and
reconstruction projects on roadways used by more than 1,000 vehicles per day.
Paved shoulders have safety and operational advantages for all road users in
addition to providing a place for bicyclists and pedestrians to operate. Rumble
strips or raised pavement markers are not recommended where shoulders are
used by bicyclists unless there is a minimum clear width of one foot from the
rumble strip to the traveled way, four feet from the rumble strip to the outside
edge of the paved shoulder, or five feet to the adjacent guardrail or curb.
3. The design and development of the transportation infrastructure shall improve
conditions for bicycling and walking through the following additional steps:
•
•
Planning projects for the long-term. Transportation facilities are
long-term investments that remain in place for many years. The design
and construction of new facilities that meet the criteria in item 1) above
should anticipate likely future demand for bicycling and walking
facilities and not preclude the provision of future improvements. For
example, a bridge that is likely to remain in place for 50 years, might
be built with sufficient width for safe bicycle and pedestrian use in
anticipation that facilities will be available at either end of the bridge
even if that is not currently the case.
Addressing the need for bicyclists and pedestrians to cross
corridors as well as travel along them. Even where bicyclists and
pedestrians may not commonly use a particular travel corridor that is
being improved or constructed, they will likely need to be able to cross
that corridor safely and conveniently. Therefore, the design of
intersections and interchanges shall accommodate bicyclists and
pedestrians in a manner that is safe, accessible and convenient.
SECTION 5
DESIGN AND ENGINEERING
DESIGN AND ENGINEERING
BASIC PRINCIPALS OF A BICYCLE NETWORK
Adherence to the American Association of State and Highway Transportation
Officials (AASHTO) Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities 3rd Edition,
1999, will alleviate basic design problems. Careful attention to rider comfort,
directness of route, an attractive environment, and coherent routes will answer
most rider needs. The remaining variable is the cyclist’s ability, the combination
of skill, knowledge, and judgment.
In development of a bicycle network, the concept of a single “design cyclist” is
attractive to transportation planners and engineers. They look for something
similar to the “design vehicle” that is commonly used in roadway planning. The
difficulty is that cyclists, unlike motorists, are practically unregulated and span the
complete range of ages, abilities, and reasons for cycling.
Various schemes have been proposed to categorize types of cyclists to put some
order into the planning process. The characteristic that best distinguishes cyclists
is ability. The wide variation in cycling ability translates into different needs and
preferences. Three basic types of abilities are evident:
Advanced cyclists are experienced riders, capable of operating under most
traffic conditions, although they do not necessarily ride far or fast.
Basic adult cyclists are casual or novice riders who are less confident in their
ability, or do not desire to ride in traffic without special provisions. This is a large
group that spans all trip purposes: commuting, shopping, fitness, and recreation.
Child cyclists tend to go short distances and may behave erratically with little
traffic awareness. They try to avoid high-traffic streets, but because they are
under driving age there are few other transportation options.
In Spokane, 1% of commute trips are presently taken by bicycles, according to a
2005 Spokane and Kootenai County survey (Spokane and Kootenai County
Regional Travel Survey. NuStats. 2005). This number represents the cyclists
who have adapted their riding to the motorized environment. Improved
accommodations on the roadway, combined with promotion and education, may
generate an increase in advanced riders who do not presently commute. A
larger increase in commute cyclists will require converting greater numbers of
basic adult and younger riders.
A versatile planning and design approach is needed to accommodate all types of
riders. Advanced cyclists are best served by making streets “bicycle friendly” by
adopting design standards that include wide curb lanes and paved shoulders to
accommodate shared use with motorists. This approach provides adequate
space for bicycles and motor vehicles to share the roadway with minimum need
for changing lanes or lane position.
Basic and child cyclists are best served by identifying key travel corridors
(typically served by arterials and collector streets) on which to provide designated
facilities such as bike lanes. Care must be taken, however, to integrate the
bicycle facility into the traffic flow, especially at intersections. Even on improved
key bicycle corridors, a “child cyclist” should be supervised by more experienced
riders.
In summary, this Bicycle Plan supports the following principles:
1. Three types of “design bicyclists” are recognized: advanced, basic adult, and
child.
2. Except for those on which bicycles are specifically prohibited, arterials,
collectors, and highways are “bicycle streets” and should be designed and
maintained to accommodate shared use by bicycles and motor vehicles (per the
AASHTO Guide). This means that, at a minimum, the ultimate goal of a Bicycle
Plan should be for these streets to include the design treatments recommended
for advanced cyclists.
3. Given the stated policy goal, a supply-driven approach of providing designated
bicycle facilities to encourage increased use by basic adult and child riders (i.e.,
“if you build it they will come”) is warranted. Where designated bicycle facilities
are provided to accommodate and encourage increased use by basic adult and
child cyclists, these facilities should be considered as additions to the existing
roadway system, and not as substitutes for shared use of the system.
REGIONAL BICYCLE CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM
With a few exceptions, the roads in the Spokane area are open to bicyclists.
Therefore, all roads are “bikeways”. However, as discussed above, many roads
in the Spokane area, particularly the collector and arterial system, need
improvements to be bicycle “friendly.” This section outlines the basic types of
facilities that are typically provided to improve roads for bicycle use.
SRTC brought jurisdictions within Spokane County together to implement
standardized bicycle classifications for the Spokane region. AASHTO guidelines
were the basis for the classification system, which were then expanded to match
state standards. These bicycle classifications are encouraged to be incorporated
into the jurisdiction’s Comprehensive Plans during their next update.
Class I- Shared Use Path - Facilities on separated right-of-way and with minimal
cross flow by motor vehicles. Minimum one-way width of 6 feet.
Class II-Bike Lane - Portion of the roadway, which has been designated by
striping, signing, and pavement marking for the exclusive use of the bicyclists.
Minimum of 5 feet with an additional 8-inch stripe.
Class III-Signed Shared Roadway - Signed lane allowing both vehicular traffic
and bicycle traffic. Minimum of 14 feet in width.
Class IV-Shared Roadway - Lane allowing both vehicular traffic and bicycle
traffic without designation. Outside or curb lane minimum of 14 feet.
Class IX-Bicycles Prohibited - Bicycles are prohibited from using the roadway.
Recommendation: Jurisdictions should adopt a regional bicycle classification
system to avoid confusion between users, planners, and engineers.
ON-STREET FACILITIES
The information provided in this document is for assistance only. More detail and
engineering design are found in the national guidelines outlined in AASHTO’s
1999 Guide to the Development of Bicycle Facilities and the USDOT’s Manual of
Uniform Traffic Control Devices. The information here highlights important
issues, but more detail is contained in the national documents.
The appropriate bicycle facility for any given roadway depends on the roadway’s
classification, pavement and right-of-way width, motor vehicle speeds, traffic
volumes, adjacent land use and other factors. On-street facilities typically consist
of bicycle lanes, paved shoulders, wide curb lanes and shared roadways. The
travel volumes and choice of roadway design will affect the level of use by
bicyclists. For example, a four-lane divided highway with high traffic speeds and
volumes, even with paved shoulders, will attract only more experienced
bicyclists. Bicycle facilities are needed on major roadways despite the limited use
by bicyclists in order to provide access to destinations and to get across barriers
(e.g. interstates or rivers). No one type of facility will serve all bicyclists.
A desire to significantly increase bicycle use means tapping into the general
population of basic adult and child cyclists (as well as potential cyclists), who
may be less comfortable sharing a lane with motor vehicles. Properly designed
and as part of an overall program to promote bicycling, bike lanes indicate to
both motorists and bicyclists that there is a legitimate place on the road for all
users, and provide a sense of place to the less experienced rider. Bike lanes
have definite advantages, although a poorly designed and maintained lane is
worse than no lane at all.
An experienced cyclist and a respectful motorist can successfully share a lane on
almost any road. Collectors and arterials should accommodate advanced riders
at a minimum. This means that many arterials and collectors in the Spokane area
may need some modification to accommodate these riders on shared roadways.
Signed Shared Roadway Routes, Shared Roadways, Bike Lanes, and
Bicycle Boulevards
Signed Shared Roadway Routes
Signed Shared roadways are shared roadways that have been identified as
preferred bike routes by posting bike route signs. These routes provide
connections for continuity to other bicycle facilities. As with bike lanes, signing
shared roadways as bike routes is an indication to bicyclists that there are
advantages to using these bike routes, as compared with alternative routes. This
means the responsible agencies have taken action to ensure that these
roadways are suitable for bicycling and will be maintained. Signing also alerts
motor vehicle operators that bicycles are present. Improvements should be
made to make these routes suitable as bike routes, and maintained in a manner
consistent with the needs of bicyclists.
Using signage to identify preferred bike routes can be used in certain situations:
•
•
•
•
The route provides continuity to other bicycle facilities such as bike lanes
and shared use paths.
The road is a common route for bicyclists through a high demand corridor.
In rural areas, the route is preferred for bicycling due to low traffic volume
or paved shoulder availability.
The route extends along local streets and collectors that lead to an
internal neighborhood destination such as a park, school or commercial
district.
Shared Roadways
All roadways, unless expressly prohibited, are shared roadways and open to
bicyclists; therefore, most are “shared roadways” where the bicyclist and motorist
share the same travel lanes. There are no specific standards for shared
roadways. Local streets with low traffic volumes generally accommodate
bicyclists (except young children) safely with no additional treatment. Shared
roadways with 11’ or 12’ travel lanes and speed limits of 30 mph or less, and
average daily traffic (ADT) of 5,000 or less are usually adequate for bicyclists.
Streets on which traffic is traveling at higher speeds than they were designed for
can be made more suitable for bicyclists through traffic calming. In rural areas,
the suitability of a roadway decreases as traffic volumes reach 1,000 ADT
because of higher traffic speeds and a larger percentage of truck traffic.
Bike lanes
Bike lanes are provided on arterial and major collector streets. Bike lanes may
also be used on rural roadways near urban areas, where there is high potential
for bicycle use. Bike lanes are generally not recommended on rural highways
with posted speed limits of 55 mph because of difficulties at intersections.
Bike lanes are one-way facilities that carry bicycle traffic in the same direction as
adjacent motor vehicle traffic. Bike lanes should always be provided on both
sides of a two-way street. Motorists are prohibited from using bike lanes for
driving and parking, but may use them for emergency situations. Bike lanes are
designated with pavement markings as well as signs along the street. A typical
bike lane width is 5’ from the face of curb or guardrail to the bike lane stripe.
Bicycle lane widths of 6 feet maximum may be desirable when one or a
combination of the following conditions exists:
•
•
•
•
•
•
Traffic volumes and speeds are high
Adjacent parking use and turnover is high
Catch basin grates, gutter joints and other obstacles are present in the
bicycle lane
Steep grades exist
Truck volumes are high
Bicycle volumes are high
Bicycle lane widths of 4’ minimum may be acceptable when:
•
•
•
•
Physical constraints exist (for a segment of less than 1 mile that links to
existing bikeways on both ends)
Implemented in conjunction with traffic calming devices
Adjacent to parking with very low use and turnover, and low speed limits
and traffic volumes
Adjacent to an uncurbed street shoulder
Additionally, for on-street parking, an 8’ (7’ minimum) parking area width adjacent
to the bicycle lane is recommended.
The travel lane width adjacent to a bicycle lane should be 11’ (10’ minimum). A 4’
bicycle lane should not be used in combination with a 7’ parking lane and/or a 10’
travel lane.
Since bicyclists tend to ride a distance of 32 – 40” from the curb face, it is vital
that this surface be smooth and free of structures. Drainage grates and utility
covers that extend into this zone may cause cyclists to swerve and effectively
reduce the width of the bike lane. Where these structures exist, it may be
necessary to increase the bike lane width accordingly.
Among the benefits of bike lanes are:
•
•
•
•
•
Defining a space for bicyclists to ride, helping less experienced cyclists
feel more confident and willing to ride on busier streets
Reducing motorist lane changing when passing bicyclists
Increasing the visibility of bicyclists in the transportation system.
Reducing pedestrian/bicyclist conflicts due to fewer cyclists on the
sidewalks
Creating a buffer between pedestrians and motor vehicles
•
•
•
Increasing effective turn radii at driveways and intersections
Improving sight distances
Providing space for emergencies/breakdowns
Bicycle lanes can be implemented by narrowing existing travel lanes, removing a
travel lane, removing parking, except where it is essential to serve adjacent land
uses, and shoulder widening. Bicycle lanes may be implemented through standalone bikeway projects, through reconstruction or construction of roadways, and
through routine resurfacing of roadways when the street configuration can be
modified without parking removal or serious additional congestion.
Some streets where bicycle lanes are the preferred treatment have
circumstances that make bicycle lane installation very difficult. These
circumstances include: harm to the natural environment or character of the
natural environment due to additional pavement; severe topographical
constraints, economic or aesthetic necessity of retaining parking on one or both
sides of the street, and serious traffic congestion that would result from
eliminating travel lanes. These circumstances are to be evaluated very carefully
before a decision is made to implement an alternative treatment.
For example, before deciding that on-street parking is necessary, off-street
(including driveways and garages), and alternative parking opportunities (such as
parking on the opposite side of the street) must be investigated. As another
example, a travel lane should be removed even if traffic congestion may
increase, unless the congestion that may be caused by lane removal cripples the
flow of people and goods. Traffic calming improvements, wide outside lanes or
alternative parallel bikeways may be substituted only after careful investigation
has proven bicycle lanes to be unfeasible.
Bicycle Boulevards
A bicycle boulevard is a shared roadway which has been optimized for bicycle
traffic. In contrast with other shared roadways, bicycle boulevards discourage
cut-through motor vehicle traffic, but typically allow local motor vehicle traffic.
They are designed to give priority to cyclists as through-going traffic. Bicycle
boulevards not only allow commute cyclists optimized routes but cater to wouldbe, inexperienced, and young riders. As such, bicycle boulevards can be
considered "stepping stone" facilities that help recreational riders (for example)
move from bicycle paths and trails onto shared roadways.
Bicycle boulevards use a variety of traffic calming elements to achieve a safe
environment. For instance, diverters with bicycle cut-outs at mid-block allow
motorists to enter the block in order to park or otherwise access a property, and
allow cyclists to continue to the next block as well, but do not allow motorists to
continue. Typically, these modifications are thought to calm traffic and improve
pedestrian safety as well as encouraging bicycling. Residents along a bicycle
boulevard street also enjoy the benefits of traffic calming, as well as the
ambiance of the bicycle boulevard:
The purpose of a bicycle boulevard is to improve bicycle safety and circulation by
having or creating one or more of the following conditions:
•
•
•
•
•
Low traffic volumes (or bike lanes where traffic volumes are medium);
Discouraging non-local motor vehicle traffic;
Free-flow travel for bikes by assigning the right-of-way to the bicycle
boulevard at intersections wherever possible
Traffic control to help bicycles cross major arterial roads
A distinctive look and/or ambiance such that cyclists become aware of the
existence of the bike boulevard and motorists are alerted that the roadway
is a priority route for bicyclists
Examples exist in a few cities, including;
Berkeley, CA; Palo Alto, CA; San Luis
Obispo, CA; Portland, OR; Eugene, OR;
and Vancouver, British Columbia. In
Berkeley, the boulevards are mostly
residential streets, however some
sections pass through commercial areas.
Generally there are few cars on these
streets, in large part because of the preexisting traffic calming devices that slow
and/or divert traffic.
The following criteria were used to select the roadways that make up the seven
bicycle boulevards currently in use:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Local street or low-volume collector
Not a transit or truck route
Very little commercial frontage
Within ¼ mile of a major street or a high-traffic collector street
Spaced between ¾ and 1½ miles from another Bicycle Boulevard
(approximately the traditional spacing of major streets)
Reasonably continuous (i.e., it extends over half of the cross-section of
the City)
Few jogs with main segments at least 0.5 mile long
Traffic signals at major intersections, or traffic signals are potentially
feasible
Access to major destinations
Connections to routes in neighboring cities
OFF-STREET FACILITIES
Shared use paths, often referred to as trails, are facilities on exclusive right-ofway and with minimal cross flow by motor vehicles. Users are non-motorized and
may include bicyclists, pedestrians, joggers, wheelchair users, in-line skaters,
and skiers. These facilities are usually designed for two-way travel and can serve
a variety of purposes, from recreation to transportation. Shared Use Paths are
separated from motorized traffic creating a safer environment for non-motorized
users. These paths may occasionally cross vehicular traffic, but in many cases
they are located along rivers or old railroad tracks and interaction with vehicular
traffic is kept to a minimum. These paths should be considered as a part of an
overall bicycle system, not as a substitute for on-street bicycle facilities.
In Spokane the most popular example of a Shared Use Path is the Centennial
Trail. This path and other Shared Use Paths are typically recreational by nature,
but if properly located can accommodate commute trips. They can provide
school-aged children and beginning riders with a safe riding environment.
The key components to successful shared use paths are:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Continuous separation from
traffic (e.g. along a river or
railroad)
Scenic qualities
Connection to major
destinations (e.g. shopping
malls, downtown, schools,
parks)
Well-designed street crossings;
Shorter trip lengths than the
road network offers
Visibility (e.g. proximity to
housing and businesses);
Good design
Proper maintenance
INTERSECTIONS
Most conflicts between motorists and bicyclists occur at intersections. In
Spokane there are very few intersections that are marked for the additional
safety or visibility of a cyclists, even on roadways that support bike routes and
bike lanes. Good intersection design indicates to road users what path to follow
and who has the right of way. Bicyclists’ movements are complicated by their
lesser speed and visibility. The following ideas are those that other cities are
using to increase the safety and visibility of cyclists:
Bicycle Boxes: A space
specifically designated for bicycles
to stop while waiting at a traffic light.
By allowing cyclists to wait in front
of motorized traffic, the bike boxes
are intended mainly to reduce the
risk of “right hook” collisions, in
which a driver makes a right turn
without seeing the cyclists.
Painted intersections: Many
collisions occur at intersections as
vehicles and bicycles are turning or
merging. To raise awareness of
where bike lanes cross
intersections, some cities paint
them blue or green. Traffic signals
should allow enough time for
bicyclists to cross the intersection.
Signal timing along a corridor can
be a problem for cyclists trying to
maintain constant speed to take
advantage of momentum. The
cyclist may be able to get through a
few lights, but then has to stop.
This can tempt bicyclists to run red
lights. Traffic signals in downtown
and other dense areas should be
timed for speeds of 12–16 miles
per hour, which would allow
bicyclists to ride with traffic.
Loop Detectors: Bicycles have trouble triggering demand-actuated signals,
which use detectors embedded in the pavement. There are several
improvements that can be made:
•
•
•
•
Place loop detectors in bike lanes, especially on side streets with lower traffic
volumes.
Increase sensitivity of detectors.
Paint stencils to indicate the most sensitive area of the loop.
Place push-buttons close to the roadway for cyclists to reach without
dismounting.
•
Use quadruple loop detectors rather than the standard square loops.
Recommendation: Consider the needs of bicyclists when designing and
reconstructing intersections on bicycle routes.
BARRIERS
River Crossings
Barriers to bicycle travel include rivers, major roadways, and railroads. Barriers,
or “weak links” in the bicycle system, can seriously inhibit bicycling in a
community by making it difficult to travel safely to destinations. A good
implementation plan should address these issues.
Bridges
Because bridges are typically expected to last up to 50 years, bicycle facilities
need to be included in all major bridge projects. Even if bicycle facilities do not
currently exist on either end of the bridge, they may be developed within 50
years.
Roads
Many arterials in a community are as much a barrier to crossings as rivers.
Interstates and highways are also barriers. Bicycle crossings of these wide, busy
roads are challenging and often hazardous. Crossing opportunities can often be
widely spaced. Additionally, roadways often contain barriers that prevent left
turns or channels to separate traffic. These types of street treatments or even
drainage covers prevent hazards for cyclists.
Because of their tendency to grab and channelize bicycle tires, railroad crossings
present a difficult challenge for bicyclists. Unsafe railroad crossings on the
bicycle system should be considered of highest priority. The maintenance and
repair of railroad crossings are the responsibility of rail companies for commercial
rail lines. Bridges over railroads have similar issues to bridges over rivers. Atgrade crossings can also be difficult for bicyclists, either because of rough or
broken pavement or because of slippery surfaces.
Recommendations:
•
•
•
Conveniently spaced, safe crossings should be designed
into roadway
Bridge projects should include adequate space for bicyclists
Ensure that reconstructed at-grade railroad crossings are
safe for bicyclists.
SIGNAGE AND PAVEMENT MARKINGS
Sharrows
These markings are used to indicate the proper position of a bicycle and reduce
the number of collisions between a bicycle and an open car door. These
markings are often ideal in locations where bicycle lanes may not be feasible.
Sharrows are found on shared roadways or signed shared roadways.
TRAFFIC CALMING
Traffic Calming is the combination of physical measures that reduce the negative
effects of motor vehicle use and changing driver behavior to improve other nonmotorized uses. Traffic calming helps increase the quality of life by creating safe
and attractive streets while slowing traffic speeds and promoting pedestrian and
cycle use.
Traffic calming objectives include:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Achieving slow speeds for motor vehicles
Reducing collision frequency and severity
Increasing the safety and the perception of safety for non-motorized users
of the street(s)
Reducing the need for police enforcement
Enhancing the street environment (e.g., streetscaping)
Encouraging water infiltration into the ground
Increasing access for all modes of transportation
Reducing cut-through motor vehicle traffic.
Most traffic calming projects involve the installation of such measures as traffic
circles, speed humps, curb extensions, and diverters. Generally, these measures
are complementary to bicycle travel. However, these measures can also be
challenging to bicycles if not well designed. The following considerations apply to
all streets, but in particular, those streets included in the Bicycle Network.
Traffic Circles
In general, cyclists often complain that they feel “squeezed” by motor vehicles
trying to pass at a traffic circle. On streets where bicycle lanes are recommended
(generally on streets above 5,000 Average Daily Traffic), speed humps are
preferable to traffic circles. When implementing traffic circles, careful
consideration should be given to the impact of the circle on bicycle travel.
Speed Humps
Speed humps should be built to the standard of 14’ or 22’ to slow motor vehicles
while providing a smooth ride for cyclists.
Curb Extensions
At intersections with curb extensions, care should be given to allow enough room
for a bicyclist. Otherwise, bicyclists will have to veer out into traffic, or motor
vehicles will “squeeze” bicyclists going through the intersection.
Diverters
All traffic diverters should preserve bicycle turning movement options and
through access unless overriding safety concerns exist. A bicycle “cut-through” at
full diverters should be wide enough (4’) to accommodate a bicycle trailer.
Narrowing Lanes
Narrowing lanes by adding striped bike lanes or a striped shoulder can be used
to reduce traffic speeds, and improve the street for bicyclists.
Recommendation: Traffic calming programs should consider the needs of
bicyclists during the design and engineering phase.
ASSOCIATED NEEDS FOR BICYCLES
Bicycle Parking
Just as universal parking is essential to automobile use, convenient and secure
bicycle parking is needed to promote that mode of transportation. Any bicycle trip
involves parking. The lack of secure and convenient parking is often the missing
link in bicycle facilities and is a great deterrent to bicycle use. It is increasingly
common for local governments to require bicycle parking in new developments
just as they do for automobile parking.
Bicycle parking falls into two basic categories of user need: commuter (or long
term) and convenience (or short term). A basic guideline for capacity is that
bicycle parking should be approximately 10% of motor vehicle parking. For
example, a use that requires 35 motor vehicle parking spaces would require
facilities for parking four bikes. Some uses, such as a public library or a popular
ice cream store, may require a higher ratio of bike parking to motor vehicle
parking.
The primary design considerations are:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Bicycle parking should be convenient and easy to find. Where necessary,
a sign should be used to direct users to the parking facility.
Bicycle parking should be located within sight of the main entrance of the
building.
Bicycle parking space should be at least 2’x6’ with a vertical clearance of
seven feet.
An access aisle of at least five feet should be provided in each bicycle
parking facility.
Parking facilities should offer security in the form of either a lockable
enclosure in which the bicycle can be stored or a rack to which the bicycle
can be locked. Structures that require a user-supplied lock should
accommodate both cables and U-shaped locks and should permit the
frame and both wheels to be secured (to avoid the need for removing the
front wheel). Note: businesses may provide long-term, employee parking
by allowing access to a secure room within a building, although additional
short-term, customer parking may also be required.
The rack should support the bicycle in a stable position without damage.
Long-term parking should be sheltered so that bicycles are not exposed to
the sun, rain and snow.
Recommendation:
The jurisdictions should consider adopting ordinances that incorporate bicycle
parking requirements into the standards currently required for all new motor
vehicle parking as an element of the zoning code. At a minimum, space to park
two bikes or 10% of car parking (whichever is greater) should be required.
The STA Plaza, a centralized location in the downtown area, provides long-term
bicycle parking and lockers.
Another suggestion is to promote transit-oriented development patterns.
Encouraging higher density and allowing mixed-use zoning (commercial and
residential) within one-half mile of transit lines have proven to support and
encourage pedestrian and bicycle use in areas around the world.
Besides parking, showers and changing rooms should be encouraged in
new construction for large employers to promote bicycle commuting. Many
employers find that such facilities pay for themselves quickly in increased
employee fitness, health, and morale.
SECTION 6
MAINTENANCE
MAINTENANCE
Unavoidable accumulations of debris along the road edges as well as surface
deterioration render bikeways unpleasant and dangerous. Un-swept shoulders
are one of the most common complaints from cyclists, especially in areas with
winter climates like Spokane’s. Thick gravel, glass, rough overlays, and cracks
force cyclists into the travel lane to find a smooth surface, which causes
animosity in motorists who do not understand the dilemma.
If the jurisdictions within Spokane County wish to encourage bicycling as a viable
mode of transportation, there should be a commitment to regular maintenance of
high-use bikeways. The following are the key points of a maintenance program
that can encourage bike network use:
INSPECTION
A regularly scheduled inspection and maintenance program is essential. All
roadwork should be performed with an understanding of how it affects cyclists.
SWEEPING
At the present time, the City of Spokane, Spokane County, and the City of
Spokane Valley all have snowplow and sanding operations through the winter
months. Road shoulders are covered with gravel due to unpaved driveways and
sanding of the roads during winter storms. Automobiles tend to sweep the debris
into a thick layer on the shoulders.
In May 1993, the City of Spokane signed an agreement with the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Washington State Department of Ecology, and
the Spokane County Air Pollution Control Authority (now Spokane Regional
Clean Air Agency) to mitigate the adverse impacts on local air quality generated
in conjunction with the sanding of roads in the winter. This agreement is
specifically directed toward particulate matter measuring 10 microns or less
(called “PM-10”). The dust formed when snow traction materials are pulverized
by motor vehicles largely generates PM-10. The City agreed to increase street
sweeping in the summer, spring, and fall to:
•
•
•
Residential -- 3 times per year (previously two times a year)
Arterials -- 6 times per year (previously three times a year)
Central Business District -- 1 time per week (same as previous)
The City of Spokane also agreed to reduce the use of sand for traction material
by 50%, increase the use of liquid deicers, and to plow major arterials more often
to reduce the need for traction material. The City’s policy is:
Plow major arterial streets with an Average Daily Traffic (ADT) count of 15,000 or
more and critical arterial hills when the snow depth exceeds one inch. A liquid or
dry deicer will be spread onto these roadways following the plowing when
weather conditions permit. Sanding material will only be used when the
roadways cannot be kept in a safe and operational condition using the above
methods. When sanding materials are used, they will be swept up as soon as
weather conditions permit regardless of the time of year. When the Spokane
Regional Clean Air Agency declares a stagnant air alert, all sweeping operations
will stop and the 15,000 ADT arterials will be treated as necessary with a dust
palliative.
The Spokane County Board of Commissioners has passed a similar resolution to
mitigate and control adverse impacts on air quality by reducing the use of traction
materials through strict placement policies and increasing the use of chemical
deicers, and to “increase sweeping activities in the early spring” and “increase
flushing, including post-sweeping flushing in order to remove more PM-10
material from the travel way.”
Although the main intent of these agreements is to reduce particulates in the air,
this program should result in major benefits for cyclists as well.
Recommendation: A regular sweeping program should be considered on streets
identified as part of the bicycle network.
PAVE GRAVEL DRIVEWAYS
Paving gravel driveways from the road right-of-way to the edge of the existing
pavement greatly benefits both bicyclists and residents, while adding only a small
cost to road construction projects.
PUBLICIZE A HOTLINE FOR HAZARDS
A hotline would be beneficial that would allow cyclists to report glass and other
hazards on the roadway for immediate removal. Some numbers for individual
jurisdictions are already available on the SRTC Regional Bike Map and website,
but a region-wide hotline would be more effective.
MINOR REPAIRS
Problems are not limited to potholes and pavement cracks. The roadway edge is
often the first part of the road to experience pavement cracking or break-up. This
is also the area most traveled by bicyclists. There is no current system in place
for identifying these locations. A more proactive approach is needed. As streets
have been resurfaced, drainage grates and gutters have remained at their
original height, resulting in sometimes several inches of difference between the
height of the road and the height of the grate or gutter. This creates a dangerous
situation for bicyclists.
Similarly, the direction of the grate slots
should be perpendicular to the direction
of travel. Bicycle tires can get caught in
slots that are parallel, resulting in bicyclist
injuries. This picture is an example of an
unsafe grate angle that can catch bicycle
wheels.
Grate on Indiana and Cincinnati, courtesy John Speare.
Spot maintenance or overlay work can degrade bikeways if care is not taken.
Where the work is in the bikeway, a smooth surface with feathered edges is
important. Ideally, the work should extend the entire width of the bikeway. When
a grader blade is used, the last pass may leave a rough tire track in the patch, so
either a smooth tire should be used or the area should be rolled.
Even work confined to the travel lanes can cause problems because loose
asphalt often ends up in the bikeway where it adheres to the existing surface and
creates a rough spot. Work should be compacted sufficiently and loose materials
should be swept away before they become a problem. Leaving the work of
flattening a patch to passing vehicles is dangerous to cyclists.
Inspection procedures should be implemented, including an evaluation of the
work done, considering bicyclists’ needs. Changes to ordinances should be
explored allowing a holdback of payment or the posting of a bond for a period of
one year after the work has been completed to ensure that the work does not
deteriorate.
During overlay work care should be taken
with drainage grates. This is a photo of a
drainage grate that was not raised as
overlays were added over time making for a
hazard for cyclists.
Poorly maintained drainage grate
Recommendation: Maintenance and overlay work should include attention to
potential hazards for all users
Widening and Re-Striping
Improvement and periodic re-striping of roads present an excellent opportunity to
improve cycling conditions. Bikeways should be resurfaced, at a minimum, to the
same width as the existing pavement and, where possible, should be widened to
standard bikeway widths.
Wide travel lanes can often be re-striped to 11 or even 10 feet to provide wider
shoulders for bicyclists with no loss in automobile safety and movement (11-foot
lanes in urban areas are now recommended by many authorities to reduce
vehicle speed on over-designed roads). An extra foot in shoulder width can mean
a lot to bicyclists’ safety and pleasure. Many existing gravel shoulders have
sufficient width and base to support shoulder bikeways. Minor excavation and the
addition of three to four inches of asphalt is often all that is required. Care should
be taken to avoid a joint at the edge of the existing pavement by feathering the
new asphalt or creating a clean saw cut at the transition.
Four-lane arterials and collectors without bike lanes can often benefit from restriping to two lanes with outside bike lanes and a center turn lane. This can
increase safety and convenience for all users -- motorists, bicyclists, and
pedestrians--while maintaining vehicle capacity. Where re-striping or other road
redesign occurs to accommodate bicycle traffic, ‘Share the Roadways’ signage
should be installed.
Oiling and Chip Sealing
On a case-by-case basis, attention should be given to maintaining the full
pavement width and not allowing the edges to deteriorate. Because work that
extends partially into the shoulder leaves a dangerous, raised ridge, oiling and
chip sealing should extend the full width or stop at the shoulder stripe. The
preferred chip seal size is 3/5 inch to 10 inch or smaller for bike lanes and
shoulder bikeways. Utility access points, manhole covers, and drainage grates
should be raised to match the new surface within 0.75 inch. Edges should be
feathered to provide a smooth transition from the lane to other surfaces.
Snow Removal
Bicycles are used for transportation even during the winter months in many
places with winters as severe as Spokane’s, if snow is removed from the
bikeway. Because the City and County currently use the shoulder and often the
sidewalk for snow storage during the winter, keeping high use bikeways (and
sidewalks) clear of snow may require a change in policy to removal of snow
rather than storage.
Vegetation Removal
Trees, shrubs, and other vegetation and their roots encroaching into and under
the bikeway cause safety and maintenance problems: loss of clearance, reduced
sight distance, debris, and pavement breakup. Pruning, mowing and leaf removal
should be part of routine maintenance. New construction should employ 12-inch
root barriers where necessary.
SECTION 7
EDUCATION, ENCOURAGEMENT,
AND ENFORCEMENT
EDUCATION, ENCOURAGEMENT, AND ENFORCEMENT
EDUCATION AND ENCOURAGEMENT
A bike system is most evident in its facilities, which are the most visible and
expensive element. Indeed, some transportation agencies have felt that their job
was finished once the bicycle facilities were provided, and that it was then up to
the user to figure out how to use the facilities. This approach generally works with
motorists because they must be a minimum age and pass a competence exam
before they can drive.
Bicyclists, on the other hand, are practically unregulated, and a would-be cyclist
may venture out on the roads with few skills and little judgment. This lack of
knowledge, combined with the fact that automobiles are the dominant form of
transportation in our society, often keeps people from even considering bicycling
as a choice. The result is that good bicycle facilities may be misused or ignored
and may even be perceived as unnecessary.
Getting people to use bicycle facilities and to use them safely requires followthrough in various programs that promote awareness, safety, skills, and
enforcement. There are numerous strategies for providing education, including
information packages, training courses, commuter programs, special incentives,
event sponsorship, and law enforcement projects. One example of an education
program is the Cooper Jones Act of March 2002, which seeks to improve bicycle
and pedestrian education, enforcement, and encouragement for Washington
State road users.
Information Packages
A bicycle information packet is one tool that can be easily and inexpensively
provided by the Spokane Regional Transportation Council. The contents should
include a map, suggested routes (both recreational and commuter), local
services, contacts, and perhaps riding safety tips. Its purpose is to help bicyclists
choose appropriate routes for their skill level, to orient visitors, and to encourage
first-time riders. The Spokane Regional Bicycle Guide Map, last produced in
2006, is an important part of the information packet.
Training Classes
The existence of good facilities is not enough to get many people out on their
bicycles. Those who do ride could endanger themselves and others with unsafe
behavior. Potential and unskilled bicyclists need to be shown how to ride safely
and easily. Motorists, too, need to be taught how to interact with bicyclists.
Training for Young Children
A January 23, 1992 survey of Spokane citizens compiled by the Spokane Bicycle
Advisory Board (BAB), established in 1992, found that there was strong
agreement (79%) for bicycle education in the schools. In 2006, through the
Transportation Enhancement Grant program, SRTC funded a Spokane Public
Schools bicycling safety curriculum program reflecting the latest bicycling
education information. The program was expanded to include middle and high
school students to learn safety skills and improve their fitness through bicycling.
In 2005, two sets of mountain bikes were purchased by the school district for this
purpose.
The following messages have been consistently taught in the Spokane school
district programs:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Wear a helmet. In the event of a bicycle crash, wearing a helmet reduces
the risk of serious head injury by up to 85%. It could save your life.
Obey all traffic laws. Bicyclists have the same rights and responsibilities
as motorists.
Look left, then right, then left again before crossing streets.
Always be alert. Make eye contact with drivers and always be aware of
what’s going on around you.
Always ride with the flow of traffic.
Be predictable. Always signal your intentions.
Be visible. Wear light-colored clothing and bright or reflective clothing and
always use a front light and rear reflectors at night.
In addition, very young children (seven or younger) should ride with
supervision
Recommendation: Bike education programs for young school children should be
funded and expanded in the Spokane area.
Training for Older Children and Adults
The BAB recognizes a real need for training junior high school and high school
students and adults. Numerous other training courses and materials that have
been designed for all age groups are available, including:
•
•
•
Effective Cycling from the League of American Wheelmen, Washington, D.C.
Training Programs for Bicycle Safety, Washington Traffic Safety Commission,
Seattle, Washington.
Bicycling Street Smarts from Bicycling Magazine, Rodale Press, Emmaus,
PA.
Structured training courses involving on-bike training are usually the most
effective ways of teaching bicycle skills. Other materials can be presented
through local school programs, the workplace, church, recreation departments,
club and community events, skills fairs and rodeos, or at home. Palo Alto, CA
even has a traffic school for juveniles who violate bicycle laws.
Training For Local Planners And Engineers
In order for a community to stay current with planning and designing bicycle
facilities, it is necessary that planners and engineers receive training in this area.
New engineering designs and techniques are being implemented and tested in
Washington and the northwest. It is important to keep the area professional
current and up to date of the needs of motorists and cyclists.
Recommendation: Bring training to the area that will help update area planners
and engineers on non-motorized facilities.
Training For Motorists
Education for motorists should not be overlooked. Motorists should learn to look
for cyclists in traffic just as they check for cars, especially when switching lane
position, turning, or going through an intersection. They should look for cyclists in
parking lots and when entering and exiting roadways. Motorists should pay
special attention to child cyclists, particularly in residential areas and near
schools. Children often ride on the sidewalk, so motorists should check for them
when entering or exiting driveways. Kids do not judge distance or speeds well,
and the motorist should give them extra space and attention. Motorists should
learn to be predictable by signaling turns well before an intersection. The Cooper
Jones campaign recently was successful in adding questions to the driver’s
license test to improve bicycle and motorist safety.
Public Relations Campaigns
An understanding between motorists and bicyclists is necessary for peaceful and
functional co-use of the roads. A campaign with public service announcements,
posters, bumper stickers, even billboards, can be very effective. These
campaigns are often initiated or put on by public service groups in coordination
with agencies. One example is the “Share the Road” campaign. An STA bus is a
rolling billboard helping to raise awareness of bicyclists and pedestrians on
roadways.
Commuter Programs
People need advice on how to commute by bicycle because most of them have
never done it and they do not know what it entails. By far the most popular
means of getting people to try bicycle commuting are the various bike-to-work
events sponsored throughout the country. Bike to Work Spokane! is an
encouragement campaign organized by a volunteer committee under the
auspices of the City of Spokane Bicycle Advisory Board and the Bicycle Alliance
of Washington, a 501(c)3 nonprofit organization. The goal of Bike to Work
Spokane! is to increase awareness and participation in bicycle commuting.
Because 2008 is the first year, in a revitalization effort, the focus is on downtown
Spokane as a commuter and customer destination.
Spokane County’s Commute Trip Reduction (CTR) program administers a wide
variety of products, services, training, and technical support to Spokane’s largest
employers and the newly formed downtown Growth and Transportation Efficiency
Center (GTEC). CTR oversees many campaigns such as “Commuter Solutions,”
which raises awareness about carpooling, riding the bus, walking, bicycling,
vanpooling, working from home, or compressing the weekly work schedule.
Another program in the Spokane area is “Smart Moves,” an annual campaign
during April, which promotes the use of transit by encouraging citizens to choose
a smart option other than driving alone. Providing special incentives or
recognition for bicyclists, as described below, could expand this program. Many
such programs have been designed for beginning commuters and offer much the
same information. CTR’s newest program is called “Travel Green” which focuses
on non-motorized commute trips.
Spokane County has a “Pedestrian and Bicycle Education and Safety Project”
included in the 2007-2012 Transportation Improvement Program that promotes
education and safety through public service announcements, instructor training,
community education and printed materials.
Recommendation: Continued support of encouragement campaigns is important
to raise awareness and participation for bicycle commuting.
Special Incentives
Many employers and government agencies have found ways to make it easier to
bicycle and to reward those who do. Some techniques are:
•
•
•
Stipends and Subsidies: The direct approach to encourage bicycling
is to pay employees to do it. Stipends of about $25 to $30 per month
can be effective and have been used in California (for example, the
Alza Corporation in Palo Alto pays its employees $1 for each day they
ride to work). Reimbursing employees for business travel on bicycles
(the City of Palo Alto pays its employees $0.07 per mile for business
travel), as is done for cars, is becoming increasingly common.
Employees who commute by bicycle should also be included in any
incentive programs offered to those who rideshare.
Company-Sponsored Wellness Programs: Some employers include
biking to work as part of company-sponsored wellness programs or
offer insurance discounts to employees who commute by bicycle
regularly. For example, the U.S. Forest Service allows employees to
spend part of their working day in aerobic fitness activities that include
bicycling. Another approach was taken by Emanuel Hospital in
Portland that offered employees $4,000 to buy homes in the local
neighborhood within walking distance of work. An even more direct
subsidy would be to forego parking costs and give the money directly
to employees.
Flex Time: Allowing bicyclists to schedule their work day so as to
avoid rush hour or darkness encourages some commuters.
•
•
•
•
•
•
Bicycles and Maintenance Provided: Rather than give stipends,
some employers have offered to pay for an employee’s bicycle after a
certain period of riding to work regularly or to set up a credit program
for its purchase (such as the City of Glendale, Arizona; City of
Pasadena, California; and Food 4 Less Supermarkets, Inc. in La
Habra, California). Glendale has worked out an agreement with the
police department to use unclaimed recovered stolen bicycles for this
purpose. Arranging for service at a local shop is another perk. Another
incentive that can be arranged by the employer is a special discount at
a local bike shop for commuter accessories and clothing. If bike shops
expect business to develop, they are often willing to give a discount.
Ride-Home Services: For companies with a vehicle at their disposal,
an offer to take the employee home if the weather turns bad, if they
need to work late unexpectedly, or if they become ill, can ease the
fears of both the employee and the employer about bicycling or
walking (such as done by the City of Spokane).
Awards and Commendations: Approval is a powerful incentive. By
singling out employees who commute by bicycle or walking, others can
be encouraged to try. Competitions can even be arranged between
departments. The Jet Propulsion Laboratory Bicycle Club in Pasadena,
California has one such program.
Company Motor and Non-Motor Pools: People who occasionally
need a car to do their work may still commute by bicycle if their
company has a motorpool from which employees can reserve a vehicle
a day ahead. In fact, some areas (Ashland, Oregon and Seattle,
Washington) have discovered that city-furnished bicycles are actually a
more efficient and healthy way to conduct business such as road and
building inspections. Numerous police departments have also added
bicycles to their rolling stock.
Relaxed Dress Code: Some offices have dress codes that are not
entirely compatible with a commuting bicyclist or walker. For example,
wrinkle-free fabrics, comfortable shoes and minimum makeup should
be approved.
Bike Buddy Program: This program encourages beginning bicyclists
to ride to work. It matches bicyclists with mentors to help with the
commute between your neighborhood and workplace.
Sponsor
Organized rides are an excellent way to introduce people to bicycling. These can
be customizable; neighborhood rides for the family or longer distance tours for
people wanting a challenge. The atmosphere should be friendly and supportive,
with plenty of help and information available. Refreshments and even door prizes
add to the festivities. Once they try it, many people get hooked on cycling for life.
A local bicycle club or shop can help in staging events.
ENFORCEMENT
Law Enforcement
Law enforcement is a recognized aspect of bicycle safety and efficient use of
bikeways. Typical violations by bicyclists include running stop signs and traffic
signals, riding the wrong way on a street, and riding at night without a light. All of
these behaviors put bicyclists at risk. Motorist violations that pose the most risk to
bicyclists are driving inebriated, and not yielding to bicyclists when turning. Most
collisions are initiated by one of these illegal actions. Frequent violations
deteriorate the trust between cyclists and motorists and can contribute to lack of
support for bikeways. See Map 7a for Bicycle and Pedestrian Accidents 20032005.
SRTC and the Spokane Regional Health District have been tracking collision
data, both reported by Washington State and the hospitals. A partnership to
evaluate locations of high accident volumes will help identify areas where
repeated accidents are occurring and may require engineering or enforcement
support for prevention.
Many communities have had difficulty in getting police to enforce the vehicle
code with bicyclists. This is partly due to insufficiently trained officers who are not
aware of the importance of citing bicyclists. Heavy criminal workloads also
interfere and point to the need for more police staff. It is important that the police
be encouraged and supported through adequate funding and the establishment
of courses to train police in proper bicyclist behavior. Some areas, such as
Seattle, Washington have had success with traffic enforcement, especially in
regards to parking and bicycle violations, performed by trainees and bicyclemounted patrols.
Recommendation; Provide a map or database to review bicycle-related collision
statistics as a means for allowing input on reducing problems, identifying problem
areas, and improving bicyclist/motorist interaction.
On August 13, 2004 Washington State enacted a helmet law for all ages. This
helmet law includes bicyclists, skaters and boarders of all ages within the city
limits. According to Paul Stepak, epidemiologist with the Spokane Regional
Health District, some 1,200 cyclists who were not wearing helmets were treated
at area hospitals in 2003 for head, neck, and face injuries.
SECTION 8
POTENTIAL FUNDING SOURCES
POTENTIAL FUNDING SOURCES
Bicycle facilities and programs can be funded through a broad range of local,
state, federal and private sources:
•
•
•
•
Local: road construction and maintenance budget, the general fund, system
development charges, joint projects with utilities, and other agencies.
State: highway projects, 0.5% State gas tax distribution, matching local
assistance grants, and support from other agencies.
Federal: surface transportation, enhancement and air quality programs.
Other: donations, grants, development mitigations, and miscellaneous.
It is advantageous to develop a consistent funding source for capital projects and
maintenance, and to actively seek additional sources for the remaining projects.
Available money should be leveraged to the greatest extent possible by using it
for matching grants and joint projects.
LOCAL FUNDING
Class II Bike Lanes and Class IV Shared Roadways, which make up the majority
of a bike network system, are usually placed within the standard roadway width
and so add negligible cost to the road construction budget. As new arterials and
collectors are constructed or old ones are reconstructed to current standards,
bikeways are simply incorporated into the project designs. In this way, a bikeway
system can develop incrementally over time, in step with the road system, for
minimal cost.
Local jurisdictions and agencies should ensure that any arterial road projects in
the area are built to bikeway standards for the street classification included in this
plan, and that costs are included as a normal part of the project. Similarly,
resurfacing an arterial or collector is an excellent time to re-stripe for bike lanes
at little additional cost. Bikeway maintenance should also be funded along with
routine roadway maintenance; recognizing the need to maintain priority bikeways
is a key step to improving their utilization.
The bike network may be constructed or improved as a part of roadway
rehabilitation. For example, routine resurfacing of a shared roadway may be
expanded to include shoulder bikeways. In such cases, additional funding may
be sought for the portion of the project that includes the bikeway improvements.
Special projects such as separated bike paths, shoulders added to a road in
good condition, and re-striping for bike lanes also require unique funding. In
private developments, bicycle facilities can be made a condition of approval, just
as roads and parking lots. In some cases, mitigation fees can be imposed. If the
impact of a development on adjacent streets is not immediate, the developer may
participate in future improvements through a Local Improvement District (LID).
Availability of funds often limits alternatives and timely implementation of
projects; however, lack of funds should not be used to justify inadequately
designed, constructed, or maintained facilities. Initial investments in properly
designed facilities can be more than offset by its durability, utility, attractiveness,
and safety. Some communities in the Northwest earmark up to 10% of their road
construction budget for bicycle projects.
When a bicycle project moves beyond the normal roadway resurfacing, other
local funding may be needed. Examples of expenses outside the normal roadway
include construction of a Class I, separated path, widening a road to
accommodate a bikeway, or building a bikeway to higher standards than
required. Parks, recreation, tourism, transit, and planning departments are often
supporters of such projects.
In bike system construction projects, it is important to coordinate with other
roadwork. This helps to keep expenses -- administration, material unit costs,
mobilization, and traffic control -- to a minimum by sharing them with larger road
projects. For example, a shoulder widening effort to accommodate bicycles along
a popular route might be prohibitively expensive unless done at the same time as
a scheduled pavement overlay; this can reduce bicycle-related costs.
STATE FUNDING
Washington State Law (RCW 47.30.050) provides that a portion of the State
gasoline tax revenue for local governments be used for the development and
maintenance of paths and trails. Bikeways are included in this provision. One-half
of 1% of the State’s gasoline tax, returned to the City and the County, is
attributable to path and trail use. When received from the State, the funds may
be used immediately for a project. At the end of the year, any unused funds are
transferred to the Paths and Trails Reserve and held there until needed. At the
present time, the City of Spokane receives about $14,000 per year. The County
receives approximately $45,000 annually for paths and trails. The Paths and
Trails Fund can be used for either on-road or separated facilities. The potential
for this funding source to be used as a match for larger Federal grants should be
explored.
FEDERAL FUNDING
The National Transportation Policy is to promote the increased use of bicycling,
to accommodate bicycle and pedestrian needs in the design of transportation
facilities for urban and suburban areas, and to increase pedestrian safety.
Federal-aid funds are available for bicycle facilities as part of a normal highway
construction project at the same financial match ratio as other highway projects.
Bikeway projects independent of other construction projects, as well as nonconstruction projects related to bicycle use, could be funded with a federal share.
Such projects must be principally for transportation rather than recreation to
qualify and must compete openly with all eligible modes of transportation
identified in SAFETEA-LU (Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation
Equity Act).
SAFETEA-LU authorized expenditures of $151 billion nationally over 6 years and
has clarified funding opportunities for bicycle projects. There were several
programs in the SAFETEA-LU for which bicycle facilities and programs are
eligible:
•
•
•
•
•
The SURFACE TRANSPORTATION PROGRAM (STP) provides funds for a
variety of uses, in part including bicycle facilities and safety programs. The
Transportation ENHANCEMENT funding set aside under STP is to be the
greater of 10% of the State's STP apportionment. Activities include bicycle
facilities, conversion of abandoned railway corridors to bicycle trails, and
greenway projects. “Enhancements” can be improvements independent of
new construction or reconstruction (which already require bicycle facilities)
such as wide curb lanes and shoulders on rural roads.
The CONGESTION MANAGEMENT AIR QUALITY (CMAQ) Improvement
Program is for use primarily in non-attainment and maintenance areas under
the Clean Air Act. The Program includes encouraging states to invest in
projects and programs that reduce congestion and improve air quality.
Spokane is now a maintenance area for carbon monoxide and PM-10.
SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL is a federal program disseminated through
WSDOT in Washington. No State shall receive an apportionment under this
section for a fiscal year of less than $1,000,000. The purposes of the program
is (1) to enable and encourage children, including those with disabilities, to
walk and bicycle to school; (2) to make bicycling and walking to school a safer
and more appealing transportation alternative, thereby encouraging a healthy
and active lifestyle from an early age; and (3) to facilitate the planning,
development, and implementation of projects and activities that will improve
safety and reduce traffic, fuel consumption, and air pollution in the vicinity of
schools.
BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN SAFETY GRANTS is another federal program
aimed to be appropriated from the Highway Trust Fund (other than the Mass
Transit Account) $300,000 for fiscal year 2005 and $500,000 for each of fiscal
years 2006 through 2009 to carry out this subsection. The purposes of the
grant portion of this program are to improve locations where fatal and injury
collisions involving bicycles and pedestrians occur.
THE INTERSTATE MAINTENANCE PROGRAM (IM) stresses cost-effective
ways of extending pavement life and preventing major re-construction
activities. This program cannot be used to increase capacity for singleoccupancy vehicles. Funds are subject to the overall Federal-aid obligation
limitation. A State may transfer up to 50% of its IM apportionment to its
National Highway System, Surface Transportation, Congestion Mitigation and
Air Quality Improvement, Highway Bridge Replacement and Rehabilitation, or
Recreational Trails apportionment.
•
CONSTRUCTION MITIGATION funding is money made specifically available
if routes are impacted during the construction of a project. The funds can
used for projects or signage to re-route non-motorized, vehicular, or transit
trips.
The National Park Service and the National Trails Program oversees the
following additional programs directed at recreational projects:
•
•
The LAND and WATER CONSERVATION FUND, money is available for
the acquisition of lands and waters or for the development of public
outdoor recreation facilities. Greenways and parks are typical projects
funded by the Land and Water Conservation Fund. These funds must be
applied for by an eligible agency such as a City, County, or Park District.
NATIONAL RECREATIONAL TRAILS PROGRAM offers grants for
maintenance and re-routing of recreational trails, development of trail-side
and trail-head facilities, operation of environmental education and trail
safety programs.
OTHER FUNDING
Bikeway facilities and programs are a community investment shared by all
sectors; private, business and government. Each can contribute in many ways,
including land dedications, donations of engineering and public relations talent,
special grants, sponsorship of fund-raising events, and so on.
Developers can also choose to include extra bikeway projects, beyond what is
required, in their project designs. Businesses can voluntarily construct showers
and offer incentives for their bicycling employees. These opportunities should be
actively promoted and supported.
There are other means for obtaining materials, funds, or rights-of-way that can
result from the inventiveness of the region. Some methods include:
•
•
•
•
•
•
Environmental impact mitigation
Street vacations
Enforcement of franchise agreements for railroad crossings
Utility tax for public works
Utility easements
Tax-deductible gifts in the form of signs, equipment and trail segments
Bicycle programs are found in various municipal and county departments
including planning, public works, parks and recreation, police, and others. Bicycle
advisory committees comprised of public representatives and department staff
(often from several agencies) also contributes. The Spokane area is fortunate to
have an active Bicycle Advisory Board. SRTC will be supporting a Regional
Bicycle and Pedestrian Advocacy Committee upon approval of this Bike Plan.
SECTION 9
PUBLIC AND AGENCY
INVOLVEMENT
PUBLIC AND AGENCY INVOLVEMENT
Public involvement is critical in bicycle planning because of the local nature of it.
Spokane has a long history of public involvement involving non-motorized
transportation, from the first Bike Routes Plan in 1976 to this SRTC Regional
Bike Plan, 2008.
A Steering Committee was formed to guide the Spokane Regional
Pedestrian/Bikeway Plan. Steering Committee membership consists of
representatives from Spokane County Health District, Spokane County
Engineers, Spokane County Planning Department, Spokane County Traffic
Safety Commission, City of Spokane Planning Department, City of Spokane
Engineering Department, City of Spokane Street Department, Commute Trip
Reduction, Washington State Department of Transportation, Spokane Regional
Health District, City of Liberty Lake Planning, Spokane Regional Citizens
Advisory Committee on Transportation, Spokane Bicycle Club Members, City of
Spokane Valley, Washington State University Planning, Parks to Peaks, School
Districts, Spokane Regional Clean Air Agency, Spokane Transit Authority,
Bicycle Advisory Board, and the Spokane Regional Transportation Council.
SRTC invited many others to the meetings but unfortunately they could not
attend.
In June of 2003, SRTC, together with partner jurisdictions and public agencies,
administered a countywide outreach program to gather public input regarding
bicycle and pedestrian facilities across the county. Draft bicycle and pedestrian
maps were placed at businesses throughout the county. At these events, the
public voiced their ideas about bicycle and pedestrian facilities, those that are
operating well and those that need improvement.
SRTC also discussed possibilities and concerns with the City of Spokane
Bicycle Advisory Board (BAB), including bicycle and pedestrian issues around
the City of Spokane.
SRTC presented to the Healthy Families, Active Kids Coalition and
participated in several activities. Discussions ensued regarding bicycle and
pedestrian issues, addressing areas that need improvement and areas that are
good. They also drew maps of their ideal non-motorized transportation system.
SRTC presented to the Spokane Bicycle Club and discussed some of the
bicycling issues around Spokane County, as well as some of the club members’
favorite routes, commuter routes, and difficult routes.
Walkable Community Workshops were held in April 2002. These workshops
helped transportation users learn what makes a community “walkable” and how a
pedestrian friendly neighborhood means a safer, healthier community. The
Spokane Regional Bike Plan - 2008
workshops were led by two expert facilitators for the National Center for Bicycling
and Walking in Washington, D.C. and focused on local pedestrian issues and
hands-on solutions.
The Move It! Workshops (September 2003) used the Walkable Community
Workshop program as a model. The Move It! Workshops focused on students
from five selected middle schools. Spokane was one of three communities
selected to attempt a youth-oriented outreach project with the goals of educating
middle school students about the value of commute alternatives.
In 2005, SRTC extended an invitation to comment for all citizens, jurisdictions,
and bicycle and pedestrian groups. Throughout the entire public participation
process, over 200 comments were received and recorded. Appendix A contains
public input collected throughout the public involvement process. Finally, in 2008
a thirty-day comment period was initiated on March 30, 2008.
Spokane Regional Bike Plan - 2008
APPENDIX A
PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT MATRIX
2003-2005
Bicycle and Pedestrian Outreach, June 18, 2003 - June 27, 2005
Location
Sticker Location
Bicycling/ Walking
Specific comments about the road (Street names, direction, intersection, from street, to street)
REI June 18 2003
On 29th between Regal &
Ray
B
If 29th at Lincoln Heights is changed to two or more lanes, add a bike path between southeast and Freya,
eventually to Glenrose. The Freya bike lane? City was going to do it. Open path (gate at Rockwood Manor)
from Thorton- Murphy Park.
REI
Just west of Ray directly
east of Rockwood (not on
a road)
W
Through Lincoln Park to 17th there is likely an easement anyway.
REI
Country Homes & Ash
B
Transition from bike path on southbound Country Homes to southbound Ash is troublesome.
REI
On Broadway & Maple
B
Southbound Ash crossing Maple street bridge is dangerous transition for bikes.
REI
On Bernard between 17th
& 25th
B
Bike path on Bernard? From 29th to 14th?
REI
On Monroe street Bridge
W
Once the Monroe street bridge is open, make a crosswalk for people to cross just north of the bridge
(possibly a lighted crosswalk) or pedestrian bridge for Centennial Trail *
REI
REI
Near Centennial Trail &
Nine Mile
B&W
The more the better!
B&W
Right now we're concerned about safety-security while on the trails.
B
Bike lanes on major roads. Trent is supposed to have bike lanes, but not marked & high motor vehicle
speeds.
B
Country Homes blvd bike lane marked.
REI
B
More specified bike lanes. Rumble strips on road are dangerous for bike riders.
REI
B
More routes for bikes are needed everywhere for transportation need for fossil fuel can be reduced.
Center turn lane w/ bike lane & pedestrian lanes needed.
Lincoln becomes 4 lanes near 14th. Not much room for bikes. Would like 2 lanes all the way down with
room for bike lane
REI
REI
On Country Homes &
Wall
REI
Around Ray & 29th
B
REI
Lincoln & 14th
B
REI
REI
REI
REI
REI
On Northwest directly
between Garland &
Alberta
The east to west part of
Downriver
Between Waikiki & North
Five Mile
On Division between
Empire & Bridgeport
W
Difficult to cross NW Blvd in this area crosswalk/light.
B
Downriver golf course road (Centennial trail loop) potholes not safe to bike.
B
A way to bike up to 5 mile prairie (no shoulder on road)
B&W
B
Division Main thoroughfare - but not safe to bike and walk. Has been involved in bike/auto collision.
Not bike friendly. More bike paths. Educate motorists.
Location
Sticker Location
Bicycling/ Walking
REI
On Mill just of Hwy 395
B
Wandemere neighborhood/ area- A way to get to Hwy 2.Connect to shopping area. Shared road wayslarger shoulders. Colbert rd. narrow, high motor vehicle traffic. Newport Hwy has big shoulders to bikes on but no way to get there. Kids communicate form #11 to Beaver Lake for work via bike. Connections to
Centennial Trail.
REI
N/A
B
Bike way north to Colbert, little Spokane River valley
REI
B
Cars exceeding speed limit- traffic calming devices. Bike bridge Monroe Centennial Trail.
REI
B
Enhancing bike facilities.
B
Bike lanes in Riverfront Park- no walking in them.
B
Educate motorists.
B
Way to get up north hill but not on an arteriole.
REI
On Upriver just east of
Washington
REI
REI
Southwest Corner of
Garland & Ash (not on a
road)
B
REI
Streets sweeps more often i.e. glass/debris (City/County). Dangerous for bikes. Discourage people from
littering.
Poor road surface- narrow road and dangerous ruts/holes. Entire downriver, lots of heavy bicycle use,
public safety hazard.)
Downriver on east/west
part
B
REI
On Sunset between
Government & Assembly
B
Narrow road, no shoulder. Signs saying share the road, high speeds, lots of debris, main bike access point
the Hwy 2 plateau, narrow shoulder.
REI
On Spokane Falls
Between Post & Howard
B
Post st. detour issue- Lincoln & Spokane Falls Blvd have to ride in oncoming traffic (very dangerous).
B
Safe parking places for bikes at public and private buildings- a benefit to their customers.
Cedar road- 2 lane rd. on a winding hill. Dangerous to bike and walk. Regular children commute road for
walking
REI
REI
REI
On Cedar Road
W
REI
On North Five Mile
B
N. 5 mile road. No safe bike route to Mead H.S.
Valley YMCA
On 29th & Grand
B
Bike lanes on both 29th & Grand Blvd.
Valley YMCA
On Hatch & 57th
B
No bike lane & 57th & Hatch curve
Valley YMCA
On Hatch & 57th
W
No bike lane & 57th & Hatch curve
Valley YMCA
N/A
B
16th from University to Sullivan
Valley YMCA
N/A
B
32nd from University to Sullivan.
Valley YMCA
On Forker at Moffat
B
Forker Rd north of Bigelow.
Valley YMCA
Trails Rd. between
Hayford & Sunset
B
Trails Rd. to Hayford to Hwy 2
Location
Sticker Location
Bicycling/ Walking
Valley YMCA
Broadway & Mc Donald
B
Linkage from Mc Donald & Broadway
Valley YMCA
Mc Donald & Mission
W
To centennial Trail.
Valley YMCA
On Dishman Mica
between 44th & Madison
B
Good loop- could be wider. Dishman- Mica, SR-27.
Valley YMCA
Bike path parallel and
south of Sprague between
Pines & Evergreen
B
Need bike lanes on Sprague east of University.
Valley YMCA
Centennial Trail just west
of Maple
W
Loves the Centennial Trail!
Valley YMCA
Rutter & Centennial Trail
B
Linking little Spokane River/ Rutter to Centennial Trail
Valley YMCA
Bike path parallel and just
south of I 90 between
Barker & Liberty Lake
B
Old part of Sprague leading to Liberty lake need more room for bikes, Sullivan to Barker interchange.
Valley YMCA
Centennial Trail &
Harvard
B
Good connection to Centennial Trail across Howard bridge.
B
Need bike lane on Pines
B
Dangerous to ride bikes in neighborhood especially Bessie Rd.
Valley YMCA
Valley YMCA
On 8th & Pines
On Trent between Park &
Argonne
Valley YMCA
On Evergreen between
Sprague & 16th
B
Bike lanes on Evergreen Rd. from 2nd to 16th Ave.
Valley YMCA
Pines & Indiana
W
Better linkage to YMCA from south of I-90.
Valley YMCA
B
Valley YMCA
W
Need bike lanes on ALL arterials
Would like soft trail for jogging ie) gravel along Centennial Trail or other places away from cars or new
parkland that County purchased at state line along river.
Valley YMCA
Broadway & Barker
B
Barker to Liberty Lake on Mission needs bike lanes.
Valley YMCA
On Bigelow Gulch
between Argonne &
Forker
B
Bigelow Gulch/Forker Rd. needs bike lanes, shoulders, etc.
Location
Sticker Location
Bicycling/ Walking
Gart Sports- Valley
On Centennial Trail
between Trent & Sullivan
B
Gart Sports- Valley
Gart Sports- Valley
Gart Sports- Valley
Gart Sports- Valley
Gart Sports- Valley
Centennial Trail &
Sullivan
On 8th between Pines &
Mc Donald
On Sullivan between 4th
& 8th
Cheney Spokane & SR
904
On Indiana between
Evergreen & Sullivan
B&W
Concerned about 6am time for safety. More direct access south on Sullivan.
Centennial Trail excellent for walkers and bicyclists.
W
Lack of sidewalks on 8th between Adams to Dishman Mica.
B
Lack of N/S feeders to Centennial Trail. Also a lack of Centennial Trail maps & trailheads to take.
W
Cheney has good paths- would be help if more were labeled.
B
Easier access to bike route on south side of river on Indiana & Sullivan.
Mountain Goat
Along Upriver
Mountain Goat
Between Cedar & Inland
Empire and south of I 90
and north of 14th (not on
a road)
B&W
Mountain Goat
Division & Sprague
W
Very dangerous for Peds. No left turns on Division, so they cut through parking lot of Mountain Goat Outfitters
Mountain Goat
Directly east of Garland
between Downriver &
Government Way (not on
a road)
B
Bike lanes on every roadway more beautification.
B&W
Mountain Goat
Petco-North
Petco-North
Petco-North
Petco-North
Needs to be safer between the dots traffic
All along Downriver
On Rutter between Nine
Mile & Indian Trail
On Upriver between
Mission & Freya
On Addison between
Empire & Wellesley
B&W
24 hr. Fitness (S)
Downtown Streets could be improved for bike travel and possibly for peds as well.
Close Pettit Dr. from TJ Menach Bridge to sewer plant from automobile traffic. Then block off from cars
between the sewer plant and the Bowl and Pitcher.
W
Rutter Parkway- Indian Trail area- People get hit walking.
W
4000 block Centennial Trail- walk path on road. Cars go fast and walkway not wide enough. Problem- east
of market. Makes people feel vulnerable.
W
Addison-good sidewalks.
24 hr. Fitness (S)
24 hr. Fitness (S)
More trails & improved trails along this area.
Bike lane from 17th- High Dr. on Grand Blvd.
B
Trail thru the hills east of Hillyard, Esmeralda Golf Course
Beltway from north end to south end to the Centennial Trail.
Location
Sticker Location
Bicycling/ Walking
24 hr. Fitness (S)
B&W
24 hr. Fitness (S)
W
Safety concerns on trail (Bikes v. Peds)
Centennial Trail (crossing the river)
City Hall
On Downriver just west of
Fort George Wright
B
Improve bike path on east side of river around downriver
City Hall
On Howard one block
south of Spokane Falls
B
Bicycles on sidewalk & skateboards
City Hall
On Strong between Five
Mile & Austin
B
Better bike lane across 5-mile- strong road- to new city park.
City Hall
On Howard one block
south of Spokane Falls
W
Medical Lake- good walking facilities-medical lake rd.
City Hall
On corner of Post and
Downriver
B
Medical Lake- separated bike lanes are great.
Just south of Sprague
between Park and Mullen
B
Valley Couplet- bike lane used to park cars- enforcement of not parking in bike lanes- unloading of cars at
car lots.
City Hall
Bike path parallel to Freya
between Wellesley &
Empire
B
North/south bike routes: Market/Freya- better bike lanes. - Hamilton- no shoulder. -North point to I-90.
City Hall
On Post between Garland
& North Foothills
B
Post- needs better bike facility. Snow in bike paths.
W
Pedestrian and bike improvement along 37th Ave.- Regal to Havana.
B
Good Exp.- Barker and Flora. Centennial Trail- poor connection to trail.
B
Along Gov't Way rd. wide enough for bikes also.
B
More police patrol on Upriver Dr. too many speeders.
B
Area fair in bike facilities/ walking Havana and 5th Ave.
City Hall
City Hall
City Hall
City Hall
City Hall
City Hall
City Hall
On 37th between Regal
and Havana
Just west of Flora on the
Centennial Trail
On Centennial Trail
between Seven Mile &
Government Way
On Upriver between
Mission & Freya
On corner of Havana &
5th
B&W
No road improvements or new roads without bike lanes & sidewalks!!
Location
Sticker Location
Bicycling/ Walking
City Hall
On bike path parallel to I
90 between Altamont &
Ray
B
Ben Burr trail is very accessible, but needs attention east.
City Hall
South of I 90 at Stevens &
Washington
B
Need better walking/ bike paths off south hill- Ben Garner Way.
City Hall
On both Maple and Ash
between Boone and
Maxwell
B
Maple/ Ash poor bike facilities.
Just east of Newport Hwy
and North of Eloika Lake
Rd
B&W
City Hall
Directly East of Eloika
Lake Rd. just west of Elk
Camden
B
Old railroad path from Newport to Spokane- good future trail.
City Hall
Between Government
Way & Assembly South
of Thorpe
B
Support Fish Lake Trail completion
City Hall
On both Monroe and Post
between Northwest &
Garland
B
Poor bike facilities Monroe/Lincoln/Post from downtown -North.
24 hr. Fitness (N)
On Northwest between
Maple & Monroe
B
No safe route from NW Blvd. Area to NC School. Lanes are narrow w/ a lot of traffic. Ie.NW Blvd/ Indiana &
Maxwell/Mission.
City Hall
24 hr. Fitness (N)
24 hr. Fitness (N)
24 hr. Fitness (N)
B&W
Northwest & Fort George
Wright
Just North of Fredrick and
just east of Freya
B
Bicycle trail on old railway bed from Elk to Sandpoint or trail next to Hwy 2 (east side) north of Eloika Lake
Rd.
Would like more bicycling routes/Trails through the community/neighborhoods.
NW Blvd. Is great to Alberto. After going eastbound is dangerous. Lots of intersections, turn lanes and road
narrows.
B
Minnehaha Park- great bike trails nearly all the way to Bigelow Gulch.
24 hr. Fitness (N)
Fort George & Ash
B
Belt- from NW Blvd. To West Central Community is good- but, not striped.
24 hr. Fitness (N)
Northwest & Maple
W
NW Blvd. From Belt to Monroe- not great walking route- doesn't feel safe! Busy traffic too close! FrancisBridgeport
24 hr. Fitness (N)
On Addison between
Empire & Bridgeport
B
Addison- nice bike lane until Bridgeport- then it ends.
Location
Sticker Location
Bicycling/ Walking
Post & Centennial Trail
B
Bike across Monroe St. Bridge & other bridges.
W
Better marked crosswalks & patrols.
B
North- south bike trail.
W
North- Indiana Trail & Woodside (crosswalk already there)- crosswalk enforcement. Thank you.
B
Bike trail to Riverside State Park.
W
Grand Ave- more crosswalk awareness. Cars fail to stop for cyclists at this intersection.
High & Hatch
On 2nd between Lincoln
& Stevens
B
Hatch/ High Dr.- no bike lane. Cars sometimes fail to stop for cyclists at this intersection.
B
Work on making the downtown streets more bicycle friendly.
Illinois & Indiana
Cheney Spokane &
Sherman
B
Between mission & Illinois on Perry & up north on Perry- a bike lane would be nice.
B
Sherman, Cheney-Spokane, & bike lanes downtown to get thru.
County Campus
Assembly & Wellesley
B
Strip bike lanes on Assembly w/ no parking signs.
County Campus
Sprague & Thierman
B
Past the Upriver dam area, not enough room on roadway for bicyclists.
MAC
On Centennial Trail
directly west of Francis
B
Better connections to Stevens County/ & Centennial Trail.
W
Maple st. ped. safety and comfort (splashing from cars).
W
More ways to safely cross river.
B
Safety- High Dr. cycling
B
Need bike path/ sidewalk along Glenrose/ Carnahan 29th loop.
B
Need bike lane on SR 904 as mph speed is 55, but most go 60.
County Campus
County Campus
County Campus
County Campus
County Campus
County Campus
County Campus
County Campus
County Campus
County Campus
MAC
MAC
MAC
MAC
MAC
On Newark south of I 90
and north of 8th
On Monroe between
Garland & Indiana
On Indian Trail &
Woodside
On Downriver South of
Garland and north of
Government
On Grand between 29th
& 37th
On Maple just south of
the river
On river between Division
& Washington
On High between 29th &
Bernard
On Glenrose between
Carnahan & 29th
On SR 904 half way
between I-90 & Mullinix
Location
Sticker Location
Bicycling/ Walking
MAC
On bike path near
intersection of Cheney
Spokane & Grove
B
Better Marshall access connections to Cheney.
River Park Square
Hatch & 57th
B
No shoulder on corner between 57th & Hatch.
River Park Square
On 57th between Regal &
Saybrooke
B
Good example of how bike path should be- 57th Ave.
River Park Square
On bike path parallel and
just west of SR 195 north
of Thorpe and south of I
90
B
Rest of Fish Lake Trail needs paved.
River Park Square
Sunset & Government
B
West link needs connected to Fish Lake Trail
River Park Square
Carnahan & 8th
B
Connection between south hill and Centennial Trail.
River Park Square
On Division and the river
B
Riverfront Park Trails are excellent.
River Park Square
On Post between Garland
& North Foothills
B
Post is really busy- sharing the road is scary.
Out of town person- would love to have map.
River Park Square
Out of town person- SW pilot- loves to bike in different places.
River Park Square
River Park Square
River Park Square
On Centennial Trail
between Harvard &
Barker
On 29th between
Southeast & Regal
B
The trails are some of the best on the west coast!
B
Arterials are scary. Walk my bike at busy intersections.
River Park Square
Between Garland &
Northwest and between
Ash & Alberta
B&W
River Park Square
On Palouse between
Valley Chapel & Mission
B
Palouse Hwy- 2 miles of rd. needs shoulders.
River Park Square
On Howard between
Boone & Spokane Falls
B
Create north/south route on Howard.
River Park Square
On Stevens between I 90
& Grand
B
Find friendly route (slope) up south hill.
Unconnected Intersections NW Spokane
Sticker Location
River Park Square
Centennial Trail just east
of Division
W
The Centennial Trail is not well lit in the area & is too dangerous in the Fall to walk home after work in the
dark.
River Park Square
Between Inland Empire &
Cedar directly west of
14th (not on a road)
B&W
This Bluff Trail is great walking & bike trail. It is threatened by a potential residential development. Should
be purchased by Conservation Futures or something.
River Park Square
On the northwest corner
of Hamilton & the
Centennial Trail
W
Needs to be cleaned up for trash and birds.
Mountain Gear
On Hatch & 57th
B
No shoulder at 57th/Hatch. need shoulder imp. To allow movement between Hatch & 57th.
Mountain Gear
Spokane Falls & Howard
B
Needs curb cut to allow South bound bike traffic from River Park Square to Howard.
Mountain Gear
On Four Mound between
Wood & Seven Mile
B
Four mound road- fog stripe needed- popular route for bikes.
Mountain Gear
On Wall between Queen
& Wellesley
B
Need a safe north/south bike path. Connect Country Homes to Centennial Trail.
Mountain Gear
Fort George & Ash
B
Signage for shared roadways to alert motorists/bicyclists.
Mountain Gear
On Southeast between
Rockwood & 29th
B
Separate bike traffic from vehicle traffic with physical separation.
B
Need a N/S arterial on S. hill that is high visibility bike route; Posts to separate traffic, lots of signage. Make
bicyclists feel that it is very safe to use.
B
More separate bike paths needed. Wellesley would be a good spot.
Mountain Gear
Mountain Gear
On Stevens south of 9th
and north of 14th
On Wellesley between
Belt & Ash
Bicycling/ Walking
Location
Mountain Gear
On Bigelow Gulch
between Freya & Argonne
B
More separate bike paths needed Bigelow Gulch- put path in when road is widened.
Mountain Gear
On Wall between
Wellesley & Garland
B
(similar to 4 above) Need safe/visible W-S Route.
Mountain Gear
On river directly east of
North River (west of
Hamilton)
B
Need a more convenient, safe way to get from South Hill across to north of river.
Location
Sticker Location
Bicycling/ Walking
Mountain Gear
Directly east of Rowan
and west of Freya (not on
a road)
B
Provide bike access to planned bike path in n/sc corridor.
Mountain Gear
Division & Bridgeport
B
Need more money put into bike facilities, especially for getting thru downtown.
Mountain Gear
Between I 90 & Thorpe
and SR 195 & Assembly
(not on a road)
B
Connect Fish Lake Trail to provide for contiguous connection between downtown Spokane and Cheney
Fish Lake Trailhead
B
Scenic, but not family oriented. Must be in good shape.
Fish Lake Trailhead
B
Beautiful ride through the downtown, Flat & Scenic.
Fish Lake Trailhead
B
Peaceful serene part of Centennial Trail.
Fish Lake Trailhead
B
Nicely kept part of trail by the state. Bike it at every chance.
Fish Lake Trailhead
W
Upset with the $5.00 parking fee-could be lowered
Fish Lake Trailhead
W
Riverside state park parking to high. -Equestrian Site is free WHY?
Fish Lake Trailhead
B
Cheney/Spangle Rd is a pretty dangerous Road for bicycling. Always on the look out for wheat trucks.
Fish Lake Trailhead
B
Hook the end of the Fish Lake Trail somehow to the Centennial Trail- Paul Sandafur has donated funds for
the connection across the Latah Creek Bridge. (funds for the bridge)
Fish Lake Trailhead
B
$5.00 parking fee when is use to be free.
Fish Lake Trailhead
W
Somewhat a concerned about the safety on the Fish Lake Trail, especially when using her in-line skates.
She's by herself.
PUB @ EWU
Keep up good work! More bike trails please!
PUB @ EWU
B
No shoulder to return to town from Fish Lake Trail.
PUB @ EWU
W
Discontinuous sidewalks.
STA (Ryan)
STA (Ryan)
STA (Ryan)
STA (Ryan)
STA (Ryan)
Between Appleway & I 90
near Harvard
Centennial Trail between
Seven Mile & Government
Way
Centennial Trail at
Washington
Intersection of Nevada &
Indiana
On Ash just north of
Francis
B&W
I-90 over pass needs pedestrian/bicycle access; everything around is good. This is bad.
W
Bike route shouldn't be through Riverfront Park (unsafe), trail on back (perimeter) by river. Unsafe
underpass.
W
Enjoy Centennial Trail
B
unsafe to cross traffic on bike
B
Would bike to 5-Mile if earlier bus service.
Location
Sticker Location
Bicycling/ Walking
STA (Ryan)
On Spokane Falls Blvd.
At Washington
W
Unsafe for pedestrians to cross Spokane Falls Blvd. Due to interface with bikes/traffic.
STA (Ryan)
Regal & 27th
W
Pedestrians crossing in front of buses
STA (Ryan)
On Inland Empire
between Sunset & Thorpe
B
Excellent road bike route
STA (Ryan)
On Rockwood near 14th
B&W
Blind corners on Rockwood Blvd.
STA (Ryan)
Spokane Falls & Post
B&W
Dangerous crossing Spokane Falls Blvd. @ Post, need bike lanes
STA (Ryan)
STA (Ryan)
Division just north of
Francis
On Monroe near or on
Centennial Trail
W
Sidewalk incomplete along Division by Kmart.
B
Unsafe crossing Monroe St. Bridge.
STA (Ryan)
On Downriver northwest
of Fort George Wright
W
Running- unsafe along parkway.
STA (Ryan)
Maple & Ash between
Northwest and Maxwell
B
Maple/Ash & NW Blvd., bike lanes (also bike lanes on Maple St. bridge)
STA (Ryan)
On Broadway between
the river and Maple
B
On-street parking is dangerous
B
Dangerous for bikes, need bike lanes
B
Dangerous for bikes (need cheap bike helmets for those who cannot afford them)
B
Trail like Centennial Trail for north-south travel (near division)
W
Unsafe for pedestrians (Maple St. Bridge)
W
Poor travel path for pedestrians from Browne's Add.
W
Improve crossing for Riverside, Browne's Add., etc.
W
Poor pedestrian route on Trent, wheelchair ramp, island
STA (Ryan)
STA (Ryan)
STA (Ryan)
STA (Ryan)
STA (Ryan)
STA (Ryan)
STA (Ryan)
On Trent between
Hamilton & the river
On Sprague a block west
of Helena
On Division between
Wellesley & Garland
Maple St. bridge
On Spokane Falls Blvd.
And near Maple
Intersection of Riverside
& Browne
On Trent between
Division & Hamilton
Location
Sticker Location
Bicycling/ Walking
STA (Ryan)
Intersection of Spokane
Falls & Browne
W
STA (Ryan)
Directly west of Boone
along the west side of the
river
B&W
N/A
B
(County-wide comment)- don't chip-seal pavement/roadways.
B
7 Mile, Four Mound, Wood, Coulee-add to Favorite Route.
B
Great route, no shoulder.
STA (Ryan)
STA (Ryan)
STA (Anne)
On Four Mound east if
Wood and west of Seven
Mile
On Freya Between
Wellesley & Francis
Pedestrian scale signing, landmarks, way finding study for entire region.
Buy lots in River run development to preserve potential Centennial Trail route.
STA (Anne)
On Monroe between
Garland and Northwest
B
Should not be able to bike on Monroe or Nevada. STA drivers want cyclist to know how difficult it is trying to
go around them pecking passengers up only to have cyclists pass them & get in front of bus again. It's like
leap frog.
STA (Anne)
On bike path parallel to
Freya between Wellesley
and Euclid
B
What is this route?
STA (Anne)
Streets just east and
parallel with Manito Blvd.
(west of Grand)
STA (Anne)
On Ash & Maple south
between Garland and
Northwest
B
There aren't any bike lanes- map legend looks as there is.
STA (Anne)
On Sunset between
Government Way &
Inland Empire
B
Sunset Hill- no room for cyclist- very dangerous.
Gold's Gym
Freya
B&W
Gold's Gym
Hangman Road
B
Hangman Valley, Palouse Hwy loop- Bike lane
Gold's Gym
SR 2
B
Bike lanes- need some on SR 2
Gold's Gym
Brooks
B
On Brooks Rd to Medical Lake from SR 2- Bike lane
Gold's Gym
Grand
B
Bike lane E. of Grand
Gold's Gym
Ash and Maple
B
Ash/Maple Bike lane
Garland- Bike lane
What are these streets?
Gold's Gym
Garland
B
Phone/Email
Fish Lake
B&W
Pot holes, cracks, divots, all along Freya- Bad for biking
The section of the trail between fish lake to Centennial needs paved.
Location
Sticker Location
Bicycling/ Walking
Phone/Email
Fish Lake
B&W
The trail from Fish Lake needs to extend to meet the Centennial Trail.
Fish Lake
B&W
The unfinished section of the trail connecting the Centennial Trail to Fish Lake trail needs to be paved.
Phone/Email
Fish Lake
B&W
Finish paving the trail from Fish Lake to Spokane.
Phone/Email
Harvard Road
B&W
Harvard road overpass- nasty spot for bicyclists & pedestrians.
Assembly
B
Phone/Email
Fish Lake
B&W
Phone/Email
Riverside: Sprague and
Monroe
W
Phone/Email
Cheney
Phone/Email
Post and Wall
Phone/Email
Phone/Email
Phone/Email
Lifequotes
Pave the trail connecting the Centennial Trail to Fish Lake Trail.
Riverside between Sprague & Monroe- best walk downtown.
Would love to see a paved trail from Spokane to Cheney. Wow. What a wonderful statement about
community.
B
Post & Wall needs bike lane & no parking.
B
I am curious about the bike lanes that have been added on the east side of Cedar from 14th north to about
11th as part of the 10th & Maple project. I commute on bike to work this way on a daily basis and while I am
appreciative of the addition of the bike lane I am wondering if there are plans to repave it? The current
pavement in the lane has about a 1" drop off right smack in the center of the lane so a bicyclist must either
ride to the right of the drop off and risk the curb, or ride to the left of it and risk not being in the bike lane
and aggravating the cars. Having suffered a recent crash on my daily commute I am not willing to ride near
this drop of and wondered if any consideration was given to this situation.
The North/South route starting a block or two North of Foothills Blvd. On Addison St. and going all the way
to Magnesium (Addison changes to Standard) is a great route!
North Foothills
Garland
B
Ness and Orchard School
W & Schools
Lifequotes
Letter WV Schools
Bike lane down Assembly to Bowl & Pitcher & then up T.J Menach Dr. to hook up w/ Centennial Trail.
Letter-Hyatt & Lodato
4/2005
I've found that there are few East/West routes that can cross Division St. without making the rider feel "in
danger" from the traffic. (Garland is one of the better ones, but still not ideal). Foothills/Buckeye is another
crossing that works, but feels dangerous during heavy traffic volumes.
West Valley Schools Ness and Orchard Center Elementary have no sidewalks
Need a Non-Motorized Coordinator
Fish Lake
B
Finish Fish Lake Trail (Columbia Plateau ) to Highbridge Park
Ben Burr
B
Connect Ben Burr Trail to U- District
Ben Burr
B
Construct Ben Burr Trail to near 57th north into housing area) Moran Prairie School Route
Location
Sticker Location
Bicycling/ Walking
Hatch Road: 57th to 195
B
S. Hatch Road widen shoulders with new development
Rockwood to 28th
B
Restore Bike Route Lanes for left turn lanes, Rockwood to 28th Ave.
B
North Wall - Wellesley to Francis Restripe Center Lane. Remove parking creating a shared roadway
Buckeye: Foothills
B
Bottleneck in route from W. Buckeye to E. Foothills & L. turn to Mayfair Hill
Mayfair Hill
B
Improve Signage on Mayfair Hill
NW Blvd
B
NW Blvd-Belt to Cochran add lane width to share
Post: Sharp to Indiana
B
North Post-Sharp to Indiana moved island curbing for shared roadway
Post and Indiana
B
North Post& Indiana Intersection-remove parking for shared roadway
Sherman
B
Connect South Sherman Ave to North Side railroad tracks
Carnahan: Glenrose to
16th
B
South Carnahan- Glenrose to 16th Ave: Build Shoulder for shared road or bike lane
Central Ave
B
Sign Central Ave both east and west as Bike Route
Magnesium at Standard
B
Magnesium Road crossing at Standard/Colton: Cut concrete barrier to eliminate conflict with R. turns.
29th and Perry
B
29th and Perry: Cut barrier for bikes to cross in a straight forward path and no conflict with R. turns
37th & Regal
B & Schools
37th Ave Regal to Chase Middle School: Reconstruct bike lanes with sidewalks
Helena & 37th
B & Schools
South Helena- 37th Ave to Benn Burr Park: Reconstruct with sidewalks and bike lanes for school route
Glenrose RD
B
Glenrose Road needs shoulders because new development
East Valley Way
B
Preserve East Valley Way as a Bike Route
North Regal
B
Preserve North Regal as Bike Route
B
Improve marking and directional signage for Bike Routes
B
Provide "Share the Road" markings where Bike Route merge with heavier traffic
SR 291
B
Scenic Byway status for SR 291: add shoulders
Rutter Parkway
B
Scenic Byway status for Rutter Parkway: add shoulders
W
Improve Sidewalks at Airway Heights
Airway Heights
Airway Heights
B&W
Airway Heights
B
Add Bike Lanes in Airway Heights
B
Complete Fish Lake Trail
Letter- Watson 4/2005
Fish Lake
Better Lighting on highway at Airway Heights on west side of town coming from the west
Location
Sticker Location
Bicycling/ Walking
Letter- Watson
B
Develop City-Wide Bike/Ped BLVD. Concept
Letter- Watson
B
ID certain Streets leading into district centers
Letter- Watson
B
Encourage "Share the Road" signage
Letter- Watson
B
Link Current bikeways with each other through neighborhoods
W
Letter- Watson
W
Letter- Watson
W
Letter- Watson
W
Letter- Watson
B
Use Bike boulevards with speed bumps for traffic calming. The bump-outs can be landscaped. Bike
boulevards lead to schools and shopping can be identified through neighborhood councils
B
Encourage Bike education for teachers and schools
B
Bike Lane or Widen for Bikes on Elk-Chattaroy Road for Bike and Vehicular Safety
Letter- Watson
Letter- Watson
Elk-Chattaroy
Letter-Centennial Trail
4/2005
B&W
Letter-Centennial Trail
B
Email from County
Liberty Lake & Harvard
Road
B&W
W
Email from County
Little Spokane River
List Projects in Plan for potential funding and completion
Paint Bike Lanes Orange or Red for high visibility
Separated trail along Liberty Lake and Harvard Road from Inlet Drive to Centennial Trail, including the I-90
overcrossing
Safety enhancements consisting of in-roadway lighted crosswalks; three in Spokane Valley, two in the
Linwood area in north Spokane and two in Airway Heights
B&W
Addition of pathways in the Little Spokane River area and a community group meeting to plan future
additions to this system
B
Spokane County has provided wide curb lanes to accommodate bike use on new and reconstruction
projects for the last several years
Email from County
Email from County
Provide enhanced crosswalks (warning signs over vehicular traffic lanes) on Arterials to include flashing
lights and boldly painted walkway
ID walkable areas parallel to arterials which lead to schools and shopping: these could be existing streets
that have good sidewalks
Provide funding for sidewalks in area where there are none. Especially on busy travel roadways (Minor
arterials)
29th Ave corridor- add enhanced crosswalks in Lincoln Heights@ Roseaurs an Pittsburgh plus Garfield at
Manito Blvd.
Email from County
Five Mile
B&W
Upriver Drive @ Plantes
Ferry Park
B
Email from County
B
Email from County
Bigelow from Havana to
Sullivan
Pathways along Five Mile Road
Extension of the joint use wide shoulder along Upriver Drive to fill the previous gap near Plantes Ferry Park
Reconstruction of Bigelow Gulch / Forker Road from Havana to the Sullivan / Wellesley intersection to
include 8 foot shoulders
Location
Sticker Location
Bicycling/ Walking
Email from County
Colbert Elementary
B&W
Separated pathway from Brighten Place to Colbert Elementary School
Email from County
Ben Burr
B&W
Pathway along the former Ben Burr railroad alignment
Email from County
I-90 Rest Stop
B&W
Spokane County Parks accepting the old I-90 Rest Stop for a Centennial Trail Head and rest area
Phone/Email
Elk-Chattaroy
B
Bike Lane or Widen for Bikes on Elk-Chattaroy Road for Bike and Vehicular Safety
APPENDIX B
PUBLIC COMMENTS
2008
Regional Bike Plan Public Comments 2008
Comment
As we discussed I noticed that our gaps plan was not included in
the Regional bike plan. We have been fortunate to have them
included in the Spokane County Trails plan. As such we would
appreciate 2 of our conceptual plans be included in the Regional
Bike Plan. These projects are of utmost importance to address
safety issues and gaps in the trail. Several other projects we have
been working with are listed in the plan, such as the extension
from Nine Mile Falls to Lake Spokane and the Gateway Park.
The projects we feel that have been omitted are:
Response/Action
Taken
Gap Plan projects
added to the Regional
Bike Plan. Argonne
concept to be
considered for the Bike
Plan
update/amendment.
1. The Mission Street Underpass and connecting trail to the south.
2. Kendall Yards to SFCC Gap
We have developed a conceptual plan, with the aid of Alta
Planning addressing these areas.
I thought the Argonne project was in the county portion but I don't
see it.
The County and the State of Washington have been working on
putting the trail under the Argonne bridge (the space is there, it
was constructed with the trail to eventually go under the bridge) As
you are probably aware the house on the corner is owned by the
County. The State and the County are working on some concept
of a trailhead and hopefully moving the trail to Maringo. I don't
know if this is appropriate for the Regional Plan. What are your
thoughts?
Thank you so much for allowing me to bring up the projects at the
last minute. We are excited to be working on the gaps on the
Centennial Trail.
We feel these areas are safety hazards and the community dream
always has been to have the Centennial Trail completed.
Pave alleyways from edge of street/roadway to right of way (at a
minimum).
Require bike commuters to register their bikes, much like
motorized vehicles are required to be licensed. Funding should
not be used for bike/pedestrian projects, but for street repairs.
Money from registering bicycles could go to bike projects. Do not
allow bikes on busy streets and arterials.
For high priority issues, maybe add completion of the Ben Burr
section to downtown, with the requisite connections thru the iron
bridge, etc...
Maple/ash is unfortunate in light of the bond's work, to include this
year, that won't add lanes
I would consider identification and creation of major routes
throughout Spokane (e.g. south hill loop from SE--Freya--57th-hatch--cedar--downtown)
Comment Noted
Comment Noted
Comment noted,
pending City of
Spokane Master Bike
Plan is in
development.
Outcome of that
process will be
considered for an
amendment to this
document.
I appreciate and support making a separate plan for bicycle routes
and issues and another plan for pedestrian.
-pg 8: Table 1, suggest defining "Rideshare" and whether
"Vehicle" means SOV or includes carpool.
-pg 3-16: Please add this project which we haven't sent to you
previously...
-Fish Lake Trail segment - Class 1 separated path along future
arterial parallel to US 195, WSDOT will be constructing both the
city street and the northernmost 1.3 mile of Fish Lake Trail.
Support : project is in MTP
Secured Funding : none
Text changed to meet
the following
comments.
It is my understanding that this Regional Bike Plan was not
developed with all agencies involved (City of Spokane, City of
Valley, & County)? In fact it is my understanding that this
Regional Bike Plan does not match any of these agency’s current
bike plans. If this is to be a true regional bike plan should it not be
in coordination with the current agency’s bike plans and the
updates to those bike plans which are in the process at the time.
SRTC is also involved w/the DKS study which has bike routes in it.
Comment noted,
Pending City of
Spokane Master Bike
Plan is in
development.
Outcome of that
process will be
considered for an
amendment to this
document.
Comment Noted
Excellent compliment for the County’s 2001 Comprehensive Plan
and Countywide Planning Policies for GMA (their transportation
components)
I am concerned about the lack of continuity of the tike lanes- they
end just before an intersection- on Southwest Blvd. At about 25th
they completely eliminated the bike lane for 50-100 ft. or so when
they put in a turn lane for traffic coming out of 25th and turning
south onto Southeast Blvd.
Please don’t minimize the importance of recreational cycling.
Comment Noted
Comment Noted
This looks like a great effort so far! I hope the final plan will greatly
advance the cause of bicycle transportation in Spokane County.
Comment Noted
I was so happy to see 37th listed as an area for bike lane
improvements, but as I scrolled through your document, I saw that
the improvements stopped at Regal. Between Regal and Havana,
37th is a mess - most with no sidewalk, no bike lane, no shoulder,
and many, many potholes. This stretch has a Middle School at
one end and a high school at the other.
Comment noted, road
and sidewalk project
on 37th from Regal to
Havana is being
considered by the City
of Spokane.
We want to encourage our children to walk/ bike to school, but
there is nowhere to do it. At the times they need to use 37th to get
to school, the traffic is constant and includes many buses. I am a
bike rider, but also as a driver on 37th, I am always concerned
about the pedestrians/riders along that stretch. I am glad I have a
mountain bike when I ride on 37th, a road bike would be horrible.
There is no other easy route east/west in that area of the South
Hill. You can go north to 57th. However, south to 29th is not a
good choice. Neither of those options helps to get you to the
schools.
Please consider doing something along 37th - my choice would be
a bike lane and a sidewalk from Glenrose all the way to Grand.
In order to encourage bicycle usage bicyclists must have a safe
environment in which to ride their bikes. Currently, city, county and
state governments have placed little or no emphasis in maintaining
the curb lanes on streets that bicyclists need to travel. Potholes
and pavement irregularities that are not noticed in an automobile
are treacherous or even deadly to a bicyclist, especially when
bicyclists are traveling down hills. Making bicyclists decide very
quickly to either hit a pothole or swerve into a lane of traffic can be
a life or death situation. Therefore, in order to encourage safe
bicycle usage I would recommend that bicycle lanes be first in line
for street maintenance. Additionally, any future improvements to
the region’s roadway system have bicycle usage as a prime
consideration.
Comment Noted
Action Items
1.
Bicycle lanes in designated bike routes get first priority in
maintenance.
2.
Stop chip sealing roads. Bicyclists need a smooth
pavement in which to ride. For existing chip sealed roads
add a slurry coat to smooth out the roadway surface.
3.
Stop using rumble strips in bicycle lanes
Has any thought been given to a bike path between Moran Prairie
and Latah Creek at the foot of Hatch Road? There should be
some connection between the shopping center/apartments etc. at
57th and Regal, and the valley below, without having to go down
Hatch.
Comment Noted,
project discussed
during SRTC South
Side Transportation
Study.
I am a Bike commuter traveling from the Shadle area to the
Spokane Industrial Park several times a week. In the Regional
Bike Plan I did not see any emphasis placed on East West routes.
The only contiguous route I see is the Centennial Trail. While the
trail is great it is not efficient as a commute path because it does
not allow for reasonable speed due to the amount of pedestrian
use and speed limit of 10 mph. The route I take involves Buckeye
(has a pike lane for a few blocks), Foothills Blvd, Euclid Ave (also
has a bike lane for a few blocks), Upriver Drive, Wellesley. This is
the most direct route East other than Trent Avenue which has
Large Trucks and more than 4 times the traffic.
Comment Noted
The problems I encounter are Glass and other debris on the
shoulder including overhanging branches, and Large Trucks on
Wellesley and Upriver Drive (which is signed for no Commercial
Trucks just not enforced). What would help are Increased
sweeping, pruning of branches and shrubs, enforcement of No
Truck zones, additional signage indicating bike usage.
Additionally multiple North South and East West routes would be
appreciated, of course they are of no use if they are not
reasonably continuous, in other words more that a few blocks
long. It would also help to increase Driver education and
awareness through signage and advertising that bicycles do
indeed belong on the roadways.
As a small business owner, with nine employees in the Spokane
Valley, I felt that emailing comments would be the best idea for
us. It's easy to start seeing the money as free. Sadly, it's not. It
comes from hard work, taking risks, and being very organized.
Once you've received our money, I hope you give some real
thought to how it can be used to help build the economy, and
encourage the growth of the entrepreneurial small business.
Remember, this isn't Venice, California. We love to bike, but
spending real money on commuter lanes is a waste. Sure, it feels
good, but the bike lanes only serve to create a false sense of
security, in a world where people still drive while talking on
cellphones. The Rails to Trails seems like a great use of money.
Given our weather, trying to get people to use bikes to commute
seems to me to be a huge waste. A few public service
announcements should be all that you need to do
Comment Noted
I would like to see are Spokane area provide more bike lanes. I
live on the North side and enjoy riding my bike to work - downtown
in the summer and I love the idea of blocking off certain area
roads for bicycles and just local traffic. What a great idea and I
hope Spokane will integrated more "SAFE" bicycle lanes.
Comment Noted

Spokane Regional Bike Plan - Spokane Regional Transportation

Transcription

Similar documents

Work-‐shop kring sin vuxenutbildning

fix-it-yourself bike stand 1693e, 624172

Visit a Navy AutoSource Representative on-board

an introduction to chattanooga`s bikeways - Chattanooga

Sunday 8am • Aug. 7, 2016 Q`emiln Park, Post Falls, ID .5K Swim

the PDF - Community Cycling Center

Township of Wall Regional Bike Path Central Section Map Map 3 of

Super Bowl 50 Pedestrian Map and Bike Detours

REDMOND Bicycling Guide Regional Map

Thunder Run 2014